Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Public Transport (Fares)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a study of the effect of increases in fares on the use of public transport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Kenneth Clarke): There have been a number of general studies of the factors, including fares, that affect the use of public transport. It is for the operators to assess the effects of fare increases in their particular circumstances.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister realise that the Government's policy of cutting subsidies and cutting the borrowing powers of the public bus companies means such massive fare increases that many passengers cannot afford to use the bus services? Does he further realise that that leads to a drop in the usage of public transport and a cut in the services—especially in outlying areas? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Bus Group has increased fares in the past year by 34 per cent., which is even worse than the excessive inflation created by the Government?

Mr. Clarke: I deny that there have been massive cuts in revenue support through local authorities, although there have been some economies. I accept that there have been increases in costs for bus operators. But there are other ways to absorb costs, such as by increasing efficiency and productivity and by gearing the service to public demand, as well as handing on fare increases.
Operators should look at those alternative means to deal with the problem and not simply hand on fare increases to the passengers whenever they have large wage settlements or something of that kind.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that of the seven passenger transport authorities in Britain, the rate of fare increases in the two Labour-controlled authorities is only half that in the Tory authorities? Is he further aware that passenger journeys per head have increased by 10 per cent. in Labour authorities, whereas they have fallen by 4 per cent. in Tory authorities?

Mr. Clarke: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the classic example of the South Yorkshire authority, which is the main Labour-controlled authority, and advise him to consider the rate levels in that locality. South Yorkshire adopts a policy of making people who do not find it convenient to travel on the buses pay for the bus fares of those who do.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that, despite the rate increase in the South Yorkshire county council area, when the question was put to the local people, there was a resounding Labour victory at the local elections? Will he take note of that and stop cutting subsidies when people want a cheaper service?

Mr. Clarke: We have not cut the grant to the South Yorkshire county council. It is being maintained at the level that it would expect as a metropolitan county following an ordinary policy. It was the previous Labour Administration who cut out the South Yorkshire transport supplementary grant, because they also thought that the policies of that county were lunatic.

Roads (White Paper)

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the White Paper on roads.

Mr. Speller: asked the Minister of Transport when he now plans to publish the White Paper on roads.

The Minister of Transport (Norman Fowler): I had planned to publish it today, but printing has been held


up by an industrial dispute. I shall publish it as soon as possible.

Mr. Adley: I regret that, once again, an industrial dispute has prevented the publication of an important document. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he prints the White Paper, it will reaffirm the Government's commitment to improving the main roads to our main ports, such as Southampton? Will he take note of the recommended Euro-routes recently produced by the EEC?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot comment on individual decisions that will be contained in the White Paper. I confirm the general point made by my hon. Friend, namely, that one of the Government's chief priorities is to encourage routes that have economic benefits, including the routes to the ports.

Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend urge upon whoever has to be urged the importance of the early publication of the White Paper, especially for areas such as the remoter parts of Devonshire where there is no other form of transport and the roads are in an awful condition?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. I hope that the printing dispute will be settled today. Whatever happens, I can assure him that the White Paper will be published in the week following the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of the chairman of the Automobile Association deploring the fact that the Government have increased road tax revenue by £745 million but are cutting back on road expenditure, especially on the maintenance of existing roads?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Government's plans for and achievements in road spending and compares them with the last two years of the previous Labour Government, he will understand how well we are doing in comparison with that Administration. I cannot say that road expenditure, any more that any other form of expenditure, will be exempt from examination in the present public expenditure climate. We are giving priority to essential economic routes.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that priority extends

to routes from the West Midlands to East and South Coast ports? When considering those routes will he also consider the removal, by bypasses, of the many bottlenecks that exist?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend would expect me, as a West Midlands Member, to be aware of the problems of the West Midlands. That is a topic that will be included within the White Paper. It is true that we place the greatest importance upon improving the environment when considering bypasses. Some of the economic routes, such as the M25, have substantial environmental benefits.

Mr. Penhaligon: After the White Paper is published, is there any prospect of the House having an opportunity to discuss the road building programme? In my recollection it is years since it was last discussed.

Mr. Fowler: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a debate on the road building programme. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's comment to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Hawksley: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements, before the publication of the White Paper, for the 10 or so right hon. and hon. Members who are pushing for the M54 to be included in the White Paper to meet himself and the Secretary of State for the Environment? I appreciate that certain side road orders and compulsory purchase orders could be sub judice because of the inquiry that took place last year. However, my colleagues and I would like to push the needs issue to both my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Fowler: I shall give consideration to that. I cannot go any further on the White Paper. I am aware of my hon. Friend's argument on the M54, which he has consistently advanced. We shall give consideration to that and further consideration to the needs issue.

London Transport (Capital Programmes)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Transport what capital programmes for London Transport he has approved over the last 12 months.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend does not approve London Transport's capital investment programmes. These are for the Greater London Council to decide within the total level of resources available to it.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am rather disappointed with that answer? May I press on him the need for London Transport to do something about the provision of proper collections of fares before it has another fares increase? Is he aware that the hiatus caused by none of the machines taking the necessary coinage and the lack of staff is causing enormous delays? If there is a need for capital expenditure, and if that comes within the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, could it not be released quickly?

Mr. Clarke: My answer is an explanation of the constitutional position. The Greater London Council is responsible for London Transport. I know that it is considering ways of improving the productivity and efficiency of the London Transport operation. Improved methods of fare collection are one of the factors that it is considering.

Mr. Neubert: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that London Transport makes substantial amounts of capital expenditure on the provision of bus shelters throughout my constituency and that these are often obtrusive, unreasonably close to people's front doors and frequently generate hooliganism? In this age of participation and as it is nearly 50 years since the relevant statute was enacted, is it not time that London Transport's arbitrary powers to reduce amenities in the way that I have described were both constrained and curtailed?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that we all know from our constituency experience that bus stops and bus shelters are rarely popular when sited near houses. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of London Transport and to those responsible for the use of the powers. The continued existence of the powers will be borne in mind when we consider local authority law, including measures now before the House, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary

of State for the Environment considers further legislative proposals.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the capital approvals that his Department has made and may be making in future for buses and bus design? Is is not a fact that the Treasury pays out considerable sums for buses that do not work and are now being sold off? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman examine these issues as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Clarke: We do not approve capital expenditure when giving new bus grant. We merely consider the eligibility for grant of expenditure that has been incurred by London Transport. We all know that London Transport has had problems with its Fleetline buses, which it is selling after about seven years. It is beginning to acquire a more reliable fleet that is more suitable to its needs.

Traffic Education

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount of money spent in each of the last five years on traffic education by each county in England and Wales.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have no expenditure returns which specifically record expenditure on traffic education. I have arranged for as much of the detailed information requested as is available to be printed in the Official Report.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. and [earned Gentleman agree that, given the unacceptable level of road deaths and casualties, the Government should take a new initiative and perhaps even consider moving road safety education from the province of local authorities to the police? Is he aware that the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that every time there is a cutback in public expenditure that affects local authorities, the first item to get the axe is road safety training?

Mr. Clarke: The figures that will be printed do not include such matters as expenditure by the police, who already engage themselves quite actively in road safety education in schools. I do not think that it would be right to take the responsibility from local authorities. We all welcome urgings from those such


as the hon. Gentleman to local authorities when considering their budgets to bear in mind the heavy cost to the country of road casualties. Road safety education should be an important part of the function of local authorities.

Following is the detailed information:
Local authorities inform me that their total current expenditure on road safety was £5·6 million in 1975–76, £60 million in 1976–77, £6·1 million in 1977–78 and £62 million in 1978–79. The information for 1979–80 is not yet available. To give a breakdown for years earlier than 1978–79 would involve disproportionate cost. Expenditure by Welsh authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

BREAKDOWN OF LOCAL AUTHORITY CURRENT EXPENDITURE ON ROAD SAFETY 1978–79



£m


SOUTH EASTERN


Berkshire
0·013


East Sussex
0·124


Hampshire
0·150


Isle of Wight
0·008


Kent
0·266


Surrey
0·034


West Sussex
0·014


Total
0·609


SOUTH WESTERN


Avon
0·125


Cornwall
0·022


Devon
0·138


Dorset
0·012


Gloucestershire
0·080


Somerset
0·043


Wiltshire
0·056


Total
0·476


WEST MIDLANDS


West Midlands Met
0·292


Hereford &Worcester
0·111


Salop
0·031


Staffordshire
0·163


Warwickshire
0·111


Total
0·708


NORTH WESTERN


Greater Manchester
0·381


Merseyside
0·239


Cheshire
0·189


Lancashire
0·028


Total
0·837


NORTHERN


Tyne and Wear
0·154


Cleveland
0·033


Cumbria
0·007


Durham
0·109


Northumberland
0·058


Total
0·361


YORKSHIRE & HUMBERSIDE


South Yorkshire
0·106


West Yorkshire
0·547


North Yorkshire
0·026


Humberside
0·210


Total
0·889


EAST MIDLANDS


Derbyshire
0·089


Leicestershire
0·048


Lincolnshire
0·063






£m


Northamptonshire
0·048


Nottinghamshire
0·039


Total
0·287




EASTERN


Bedfordshire
0·092


Buckinghamshire
0·004


Cambridgeshire
0·014


Essex
0·121


Hertfordshire
0·018


Norfolk
0·054


Oxfordshire
0·044


Suffolk
0·055


Total
0·402


REATER LONDON
1·659


DTAL ENGLAND
6·228

Trunk Road Schemes

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of Transport whether contracts were awarded for all of the following trunk road schemes in the financial year 1979–80 for which provision was made in the Supply Estimates 1979–80: M3 Compton-Bassett widening, A6 Elstow bypass, A17 Heckington bypass, A17 Swineshead bypass, A31 Bere Regis bypass, A40 North-leach bypass, A40 Hillingdon West End road, A40 Gloucester North bypass main works, A49 Brimfield bypass, A66 Bowes bypass, A66 Troutbeck diversion, A303 Furze Hedge improvement, A423 Dorchester bypass, and A17 Leadenham bypass.

Mr. Kenneth Garke: Contracts were awarded for none of these schemes in 1979–80.

Mr. Booth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he told the House on 23 January that there would be no underspend in the 1979–80 roads programme and that there would not be the situation which had occurred in previous years, which he had criticised? What has happened to the money contained in the 1979–80 Estimates for these specific programmes? Has there been underspend? Has the money been allocated to other road schemes? Are the Government in considerable difficulty with their roads programme as a result of a failure to carry out the schemes that they included in their roads Estimates?

Mr. Clarke: The programmes that I have mentioned have not been started for a number of reasons, some because of legal challenge, some because of statutory procedures, and a few because of lack of funds. The situation is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman states. I have taken especial care in answering


question No. 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) to set out the details of the financial background. I regret to say that there has been a slight overspend this year in contrast with previous years. We have breached our cash limit by a small amount. The programmes that are listed in the question that cannot be started could not possibly have been built by the previous Labour Government within their cash limit. Had they gone ahead and built everything for which they had programmed, there would have been either the most massive breach of their cash limits or neglect of vital motorway maintenance, neither of which we are prepared to contemplate.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has picked his priorities with care? Hon. Members representing constituencies in Hampshire and in Dorset hope that the first and penultimate items will be completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Clarke: All the schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has identified are popular in their localities. None of them has been abandoned. I hope that most of them will be built in the next year or two. The Northleach bypass is the subject of a successful High Court challenge and is having to be considered again.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister, like many other Conservative Members, keep apologising for the spending cuts that the Government have introduced? Why does he not follow the Prime Minister, who, when interviewed a short time ago on the anniversary of her first year in office and asked "What would you do if you had the opportunity to go over your programme today?", replied that she would have cut spending much more harshly and much more quickly? Why does he adopt such a schizophrenic attitude? Surely he should be supporting the public spending cuts that the Prime Minister thinks are wonderful.

Mr. Clarke: The road building programme has to bear its proper share in the cuts. We are seeking to achieve a stable level of programmed expenditure and to achieve that in practice year by year. That was never done by the previous Labour Government. The construction

industry was ruined by that Administration using capital cuts as an easy way out whenever they faced a crisis. They then grotesquely underspent the provision, which led to great criticism from the construction industry.

Road Construction Units

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the road construction units.

Mr. Fowler: I announced on 6 March, following the Rayner scrutiny of the road construction unit organisation, my policy decision to phase out sub-units by transferring their work to consultants and county councils. I have recently completed discussions with the interested organisations on the detailed policy guidelines for the action study, which will reach decisions on the individual schemes and sub-units. The action study will start very shortly, once I have published the White Paper on roads.

Mr. Mills: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to hear that many hon. Members who are interested in roads support his action. Can he give some idea of the time scale and of the nature of reduction of staff that this will involve—particularly in the sub-units—and of any further plans he may have beyond that?

Mr. Fowler: The aim is to complete the action study in about three months in order to start savings. At the moment, there are about 1,700 people in the RCU sub-units. Therefore, there should be substantial reductions in public sector manpower in that area. I stress that that is in addition to the 18 per cent. reduction within the Department of Transport which I have already announced.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that no matter what he does about the reduction in the construction units, the road conditions in this country are in a terrible plight? What does he intend to do about improving the maintenance of roads that have been allowed to deteriorate under the previous two or three Governments? Does he realise that severe accidents are being caused by motorists seeking to avoid ruts in the road?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that there is a great deal of evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I agree with him that maintenance must be a priority. There is no case for saying that there must be some shift of resources from investment to maintenance. We take that very seriously and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members think that the RCUs are a total waste of time and money, that they have not justified their existence and should be scrapped in toto?

Mr. Fowler: In that case my hon. Friend will be in sympathy with the kind of proposals that I am bringing forward. My major aim is to give more work to private consultants in this area. They already carry out an enormous amount of export work, and it makes a great deal of sense to give them a home base.

Road Programme Priorities

Mr. Wigley: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the priorities of his road programme are acknowledged and, where practical, aided by the European Economic Community.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: EEC aid for United Kingdom roads at present comes only from the European regional development fund, which benefits certain local authority schemes. Of course, we seek to ensure that United Kingdom priorities are reflected in such aid.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister take up with the European authorities the importance of roads such as the E20 Euro-route that runs from Dun Laog-haire to Holyhead along the North Wales coast to the A55, across England and then to the Continent? There is an increasing volume of traffic on that trunk road. Should not there be a mechanism whereby European aid could be given to improve this road as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister take up this matter with the European authorities?

Mr. Clarke: At present, there is no such mechanism, but there is an interesting proposal for a transport infrastructure

fund. We wish to make progress on that proposal, and we are not holding back on the suggestion that some good European routes would justify Community expenditure.

Mr. Hicks: Will my hon. and learned Friend elaborate on the proposals for the EEC transport infrastructure fund? Can he say what criteria will be used for aiding roads in this country, and if and when progress is likely to be made along these lines?

Mr. Clarke: At the moment we have only a Green Paper from the Commission setting out the basis for a possible transport infrastructure fund. We hope that there will be further discussions about this possible transport fund at the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers. Certainly my right hon. Friend wishes to have a detailed discussion of the criteria and possible scope of such a fund, because we see potential in it and we should like to forward the idea.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister bear in mind that among the people demanding bigger, better and wider roads in this coutry are organisations such as the AA, the RAC, the BRF, the RHA, the Movement for London, Shell, Mobil Texaco and the multi-million pound road haulage industry, and also certain unpaid hacks on both sides of the House who frequently talk out of the sides of their heads?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must have many effigies on his mantle-piece into which he sticks pins from time to time. In discussions about the possible EEC infrastructure funds for transport we are considering not only roads schemes, but possible rail investments. We should also like to see investment in airports and port and ferry facilities in Britain. We see no reason why the various modes of transport should be regarded as mutual enemies, or why their interests should be mutually antagonistic.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Is it not clear that one of the main objectives of the transport infrastructure fund will be to enable grants to be made for roads and other forms of transport, in particular to the South Coast ports, which would be of great benefit to communications between Europe and Britain?

Mr. Clarke: We are anxious to pursue that idea. There seems to be a genuine Community interest in improving international links, particularly our links with ports in continental Europe. At the moment, there is no such aid in existence or on offer. My right hon. Friend will do what he can to forward discussions on the present quotas.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the current amount of paid annual vehicle excise duty; and what action he is taking to collect unpaid amounts.

Mr. Fowler: Excluding amounts refunded, the figure for 1979–80 was £1,109 million. In addition, fines, costs and back duty of almost £6 million were collected from evaders. In association with the police I am stepping up my Department's enforcement effort, and a successful campaign against evaders was mounted in Nottinghamshire in February and another has just started in Warwickshire. Other possible ways of reducing evasion are being studied and I am having a special and urgent study carried out in association with Sir Derek Rayner.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he accept that if some of the current estimates of unpaid duty are accurate, the need for increasing this form of duty—which is believed to be under consideration—would be avoided if proper collection were made?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend refers on his last point. It is certainly the case that the reduction of evasion would make a substantial difference. That is why we have taken this action in, for example, Nottinghamshire, which led to a significant increase in re-licensing and detection not only of evasions but of many other road safety offences.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I declare an interest in that for 25 years I have been trying to get an answer to this question? Each time the question is asked Ministers give the same reply. Is the Minister aware that evaders pay only a nominal fine and a quarter's arrears, having saved hundreds of pounds in the tax they have

dodged? Will the Minister take action to ensure that evaders pay back all the arrears, plus a hefty fine? He may then get somewhere.

Mr. Fowler: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter over the last 25 years. I shall certainly take up his question with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Government are taking action against evaders, and if the hon. Member studies the report on the Nottinghamshire case, he will see how effective we have been.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Do traffic wardens have a specified duty to scrutinise tax discs that are displayed on cars? If so, how effective have they been, and what steps are being taken to make them more effective?

Mr. Fowler: Traffic wardens carry out this duty, but in the crackdowns in Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire they were also aided by the police. I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation not only of the chief constables but of the police in those counties for the work that they have done.

Mr. Anderson: There are people outside Nottingham who do not pay their duties. If the Minister is serious about evasion, surely more enforcement officers should be employed. Does not this conflict with the way—by cash limits and otherwise—that the Government are cutting down on the employment of such officers?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not declaring an interest, as a previous questioner was. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a fairly familiar point, and I understand his constituency point of view. However, I am sure that he will also agree that not only are we collecting more in terms of unpaid duty but we are making the whole Swansea system and the licensing system much more efficient and effective with fewer staff. I think that that is to the good of the general public.

Rail Closures

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Transport what studies have been carried out by his Department into the social consequences of rail closures.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None, Sir, but I am aware of the report recently published by the policy studies unit.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that the conclusions of that report are that the fears expressed at public inquiries into rail closures have been well founded and that bus replacements have proved wholly inadequate in community terms? In spite of those conclusions and in spite of what the Minister has told the House, will the Minister nevertheless sanction the new Britsh Rail proposals to close three rail services in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Glasgow?

Mr. Clarke: We have noticed the conclusions of the policy studies unit report. It confirms my right hon. Friend's repeated determination to avoid substantial rail closures. As for the three proposals, which I understand British Railways are formulating, they have not yet reached Ministers. When formulated, they will have to go through the full statutory procedures before my right hon. Friend begins to decide whether to sanction them. In fact, two of the three arise because passenger transport executives—local authorities—have decided to discontinue financial support for the services. The third, I understand, is adversely affected by one of those decisions.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister accept that the closure of the Epping-Ongar branch line by London Transport, as is now proposed, would have considerable social consequences for my constituency? As he is now likely to be called into the procedure, will he make sure that, whatever other economic circumstances are taken into account, the social circumstances of my constituents are not overlooked?

Mr. Clarke: Again, of course, I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's decision on the Epping-Ongar line, if he is called upon to make one. But this, again, is another problem which arises because of a dispute among the local authorities concerned about which of them should continue the financial support for the present line. The Government have no interest whatever in forwarding widespread closures of rural railway services or any other.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the report in The Guardian in which the Minister is said to have given permission for the closure of railway lines, in particular the Penistone to Sheffield link? Is he aware of the consequences that this will have on my constituents in an area which is inadequately supported at present by road services? Is he aware that only a few weeks ago his right hon. Friend condemned a report in The Guardian because of the groundless anxiety that it caused, and now it is here?

Mr. Clarke: I can understand the concern which that report has aroused in Penistone. I also know that ministerial denials of newspaper reports tend, in some people's minds, merely to feed belief in the accuracy of the reports. I am afraid that I can only say that that first report in The Guardian saying that Ministers had approved these proposals was totally and utterly untrue. We have not even received the proposals yet. Before we receive them, there may have to be a public inquiry and a TUCC report on possible hardship, and then my right hon. Friend will have to make a decison. But it is utter fiction to claim that any decision has been made about proposals which have not even reached us.

Mr. Booth: Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that there is much concern in the House about the continued reassertion that his right hon. Friend will not sanction substantial closures of public transport lines? Asking how large is "substantial" is like asking "How long is a piece of elastic?" Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House clearly, in a totally unambiguous way, whether his right hon. Friend will sanction the closure of the Epping-Ongar line or any other line purely on the ground that a county authority has not been prepared to provide TSG support for that line?

Mr. Clarke: Of course my right hon. Friend cannot give guarantees that there will be no passenger line closures—any more than could the previous Government. One of the proposals that we are most actively considering is for the diversion of a passenger service from Kentish Town to Gospel Oak, that diversion being asked for in order to speed up the process of the electrification on the St. Pancras-Bedford line, which could not


otherwise handle the traffic. We cannot rule out closures of that kind. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not interested in, and will not countenance, substantial closures of the other passenger services, and misleading newspaper reports are just giving rise to constant groundless alarm.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from either side of the House on this question and then move on.

Mr. Porter: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet, certainly in my constituency and on the Wirral peninsula, about possible closures not of passenger lines but of freight lines, which do not receive the same publicity or have the same consultation procedure? Will he give an assurance that if there is the possibility of closing freight lines, certainly on the Wirral peninsula, consultation will certainly be carried out with representatives of all parties on that peninsula?

Mr. Clarke: I know from practice that British Rail consults very widely when contemplating the closure of freight lines. However, in the case of freight lines there is not the same social problem as there is with rural passenger lines. British Rail is under a commercial remit so far as its freight business is concerned and there is no requirement for ministerial consent for the closure of any freight line. I have to say, therefore, that quite different considerations apply in that case.

Mr. Buchan: Is the Minister aware that one of the three lines mentioned in the report of yesterday is the Kilmacolm line in my constituency? Does he agree that it would be extremely stupid and shortsighted even to give consideration to any such proposal in view of the major development that has taken place on the Clyde with the Clyde link? The social policy studies unit report makes quite clear the long-lasting effect that this would have on rural areas, and that includes my area.

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend will have to consider proposals if they reach him, and Glasgow-Kilmacolm is one of the lines mentioned. However—and this

also deals with the other point made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—the Greater Glasgow PTE is withdrawing support from the Glasgow-Kilmacolm line. We have to consider that, because there are many metropolitan counties which give substantial financial support to their railway services, and it alters the situation when some metropolitan counties decide to withdraw their financial contribution. They are, after all, the locally elected representatives of the people who are likely to be affected by the service changes.

British Railways (Staff)

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of employees of British Railways at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The figure at 22 March 1980 for the Railways Board as a whole, including the subsidiaries, was 240,534. Of these 179,076 were employed in the railway business, 2,955 fewer than at the beginning of the year.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that the efficient use of manpower with resulting productivity is vital to the effective future of British Rail? Does he recollect that at the time of the last wage settlement considerable optimism was expressed by British Rail on the ground that the rail unions were at last prepared at least to discuss certain matters that hitherto they had not been prepared to discuss? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, particularly regarding the way in which that statement was received by the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen?

Mr. Fowler: I think that it was Sir Peter Parker, the chairman of British Rail, who said that productivity was the rock upon which the future of British Rail was based. We entirely agree and accept that.
I think that we and the public will expect the improvements in productivity that were mentioned at the time of the statement to be realised.

Mr. Bagier: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give credit to the railway-men? Will he not concede that there has


been a tremendous improvement in productivity? The reduction in the number of staff shows that quite clearly. Will he take this opportunity to stop the sniping that goes on at British Railways staff, who have an extremely difficult job to do? Will he accept, for example, that many of the delays are caused because many of the jobs involve unsocial hours in many parts of the country and just cannot be filled at the rates of pay being offered?

Mr. Fowler: There is no sniping at British Rail staff. I am glad to pay tribute to the improvements that have taken place over the years. Between 1960 and 1979 there was a 54 per cent. reduction in staff. Those reductions and improvements in productivity have slowed down over the last few years. It should be common ground, at any rate, not just between both sides of the House but in the railway industry, that further improvements in productivity are essential if fares for the travelling public are to be retained within reasonable bounds. I think that that is also something with which the railway industry must concern itself.

Mr. Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of the editor of the major modern railway magazine that the drivers of freight trains are still insisting, through their union, on the adherence to divisions not just pre-nationalisation but pre-grouping, and that the drivers on British railways do fewer hours a week actually driving than those in most countries in Europe?

Mr. Fowler: Anyone who considers our railway system objectively will come to the conclusion that improvements in productivity are necessary and possible. I hope that that message will be taken on board by those working in the railway industry.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister realise that if the same drop in numbers were to occur again, no men would be left to work in the railway industry? Will he accept what the chairman of British Rail said when the latest agreement was reached? He said that British Rail had made one of its best advances and that it was sufficient to justify a request to the Government for more favourable treatment and for extra investment. Is he aware that investment is badly needed?

Mr. Fowler: No advance has yet been made. I agree that if such advances are made, they will represent a substantial step forward. However, it is possible to make economies in freight yards, parcels and in administration. The Government and the public will want those goals to be achieved.

A564 (Stoke—Derby Link)

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Blythe Bridge to Uttox eter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that the inspector will be able to complete his report within the next two months.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of those living in the area are in favour of the proposed route? When he receives the inspector's report, will he reach a quick decision?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one cannot prejudge the conclusion of such an inquiry. I realise his anxiety about the decision on the route and about the future of the scheme. We shall reach a decision as quickly as possible when we receive the inspector's report.

Public Service Vehicles

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Transport how many public service vehicles are currently licensed by the traffic commissioners.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: For the year ending 31 March 1979, the number of PSV licences granted by the traffic commissioners was 75,320.

Mr. Bevan: What annual reduction is expected in the number of licences to be issued by the traffic commissioners when the Transport Bill is enacted?

Mr. Clarke: The legislation will change the system. We shall go over to operators' licences. We shall not licence individual vehicles. The Act will improve the quality of transport services in many parts of the country. It will provide great opportunities to existing and new operators to develop their present services


and to introduce better services than are at present found in many areas.

Road Accidents (Injury Statistics)

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Transport what reduction in the injury rate on Great Britain's roads occurred between 1970 and the latest available year.

Mr. Fowler: In 1970, 7,499 people were killed on the roads and 93,499 were seriously injured. In 1979, 6,327 people were killed and 80,274 were seriously injured. This was the lowest figure of those killed since 1958 and it is estimated that the number of casualties, per vehicle distance travelled, fell by 30 per cent. between 1970 and 1979.

Mr. Mawby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be very pleased with those figures and with the tremendous increase in safety? Does he not agree that the decline of 30 per cent. in the number of casualties can be ascribed mainly to the development of the motorway network? Will he acknowledge that motorways are our safest roads and that they have an accident rate that is nearly one tenth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—certainly, I am reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said before, it is foolish to confess in public. The hon. Gentleman may glance at his notes, but he should not admit it.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise Mr. Speaker. I was led astray. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the accident rate on motorways is about one-tenth of that on urban roads?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There has been a reduction in the accident rate—which I am sure that the House will welcome—during the past decade as a result of better roads. However, that is only one factor. There has also been an improvement in training facilities and that has been of particular help to young people. It has made a major contribution to the reduction in the number of accidents.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that those figures could be improved substantially in a number of areas? Is the Minister further aware that we are still waiting for the Government to produce

some hard-hitting proposals—that will require some expenditure—to reduce the number of motor cycle accidents? Is he further aware that the glow-worm campaign is supported by such national newspapers as the Sunday Mirror and by many other organisations? Will not that campaign help to prevent accidents to motor cyclists and pedestrian children?

Mr. Fowler: The glow-worm campaign is being organised by RoSPA and by the Sunday Mirror. We welcome the campaign and hope that it will be successful. I know that the hon. Gentleman has expressed concern during the past few months about motor cycle accidents. We shall shortly produce proposals on that subject. I hope that they will relieve the hon. Gentleman's concern. Far more motor cyclists must be trained before they go on the road for the first time.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: To what extent does drunken driving contribute to those figures? Does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce new measures to tighten up the restrictions on drunken driving?

Mr. Fowler: Yet, Sir. At present, about one in three of those drivers who are killed are over the limit. That underlines the importance of taking action over drunken driving. The Blennerhassett report—which we are now consulting—lays down the basis for action. Only one aspect is controversial, namely, the random test. The Government are not committed to introducing such tests. I would need a great deal of persuasion to change my mind on that point. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that the other measures contained in the Blennerhassett report should be introduced.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: To what extent did the temporary speed restrictions, introduced as a result of fuel problems in 1974, affect the accident rate during the years of enforcement?

Mr. Fowler: In many ways, they hardly affected the accident rate.

London Underground (Violence)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his recent discussions concerning violence on transport undertakings.

Mr. Fowler: The conference on violence on public transport, which was held on 6 May, was attended by representatives of a wide range of interested organisations. A number of areas were identified for future action, including strengthening of the British Transport police, the setting up of mobile police units, stiffer penalties for offenders, the greater use of close circuit television and two-way radios, and action to ban alcohol on certain trains.
The Government are now giving urgent consideration to all those points.

Mr. McCrindle: Although I welcome the conference's decision, particularly that part of it which related to increasing the number and effectiveness of police on London Transport, will the Minister confirm that that can be achieved only by expenditure that is beyond the existing budget of the British Transport police? Bearing in mind that the issue concerns law and order—supposedly exempt from public expenditure cutbacks—will he confirm that a lack of finance will not cause a major hold-up in achieving that objective?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. We are studying British Rail's proposal for mobile units in respect of the British Transport police. Those units will not be hindered by a lack of resources. I reaffirm that the Government will give priority to law and order.

Mr. Snape: Will not the Minister concede that the British Transport police have outlived their usefulness? Is not there a good case for arguing that the ordinary police force should be responsible for law and order on public transport? Next time he meets his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will he tell him that many of those who have worked, or who are working in the transport business feel that it is about time that the Home Secretary issued an edict to magistrates to the effect that assaults on public transport staff should result in custodial sentences?

Mr. Fowler: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The British Transport police are continuing to do a good job in exceptionally difficult circumstances. His proposal will not receive much support. The hon. Gentleman will know that the

Home Secretary proposes to increase the maximum prescribed penalty for the offence of assault to £1,000 and six months in gaol. I agree that sentencing policy will affect the problem.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister in favour of a separate police force for London Transport? Is it not a fact that there was a delay in dealing with the Neasden disturbances because a report had to be made first to the London Transport police before the Metropolitan Police could be brought in?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that is a fair interpretation of the facts. Virtually all the people who were at the conference agreed that the British Transport police had a good role which should not be disturbed.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Minister make it obligatory for all transport operators to have two-way radio installed in all passenger-carrying vehicles? Will he encourage the use of two-way radios at railway stations where communications are so important?

Mr. Fowler: Certainly we are looking at the possibilities of two-way radios. They are already used in some areas and we shall study the case for extending that use.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war; and if he will take steps to bring down the service to a figure near to this amount.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): The lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war was 643,000. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 13 May, we intend to bring the number of civil servants down to about 630,000 over the next four years.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is concern that the savings will be made on the services to people while the administration still rolls on? Will he make productivity a central part of his policy, although the


Civil Service is loth to discuss this matter? If we get the right productivity, we can have the savings and provide good service to the people.

Mr. Channon: I certainly agree that essential services should not be cut. We want extra productivity and that is what we shall achieve.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister chose a figure of 630,000 civil servants? Why was it not 620,000 or 640,000 or even 500,000? Will he also tell the House how many of the 75,000 further reductions announced last week had not been announced previously?

Mr. Channon: The Government chose the figure of 630,000 because, after careful study, we decided that that was appropriate. On the question of the cuts that had already been announced, I was surprised to read the astonishing speech by the hon. Member accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House. In fact, she made the situation perfectly clear in her statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As the number of civil servants has increased since the war, does my hon. Friend believe that the quality of government has improved?

Mr. Channon: Certainly it has improved in the last 12 months.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that it is easy to reduce the number of civil servants if, at the same time, one puts the work out to the private sector? What action is the Minister taking to ensure that, when work is put out to the private sector, there are gains in efficiency and that Ministers who are under pressure to reduce the numbers of civil servants will not just transfer the work and pay more for the disadvantage of getting the work done by the private sector?

Mr. Channon: I have not noticed that it has been easy to reduce the number of civil servants, but I am grateful to the right hon. Member for telling me. Where functions can be performed more efficiently or economically outside, it may be right to hive them off. I assure the right hon. Member that each case will be considered on its merits.

Pay Research Unit

Mr. Whitney: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the operation of the Pay Research Unit.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend consider that answer carefully again? When he looks at the operation of the PRU, will he not consider that it has resulted in high levels of Civil Service salaries, which have increased the difficulties of reaching reasonable pay settlements in the private sector?

Mr. Channon: Whatever the truth of that statement, it is not the fault of the Pay Research Unit. In this year's pay settlement the Government have applied a strong discipline in the form of a 14 per cent. cash limit. I wish that that had been followed in other sections of the community as well.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware of the comprehensive press reports this morning that the Government will look again at fair comparison for settling Civil Service pay? Does he remember the denials of previous press leaks of this sort which were subsequently confirmed in the Prime Minister's statement last week? Will he say something today to assure people that those press leaks are not from Government Departments. as they clearly appear to be?

Mr. Channon: I have not the least idea where those leaks came from. I was not responsible for them so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Member has said. I should be very surprised if they came from Government Departments.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the weakness of these comparisons is that in the public service there is no strain, no risk of dismissal, an index-linked pension and honour from the Queen? Compared with the risks of private enterprise, civil servants are very softly bedded.

Mr. Channon: I take note of my hon. Friend's views, and I understand that a large number of hon. Members share them. A system of comparability has been used to fix Civil Service pay almost


since the time of Northcote Trevelyan, and to change it would be quite a major undertaking.

Manpower

Mr. Gummer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for a Civil Service manpower policy for the rest of this Parliament.

Mr. Channon: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 May.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is that the suggestion is always made that the only way to reduce Civil Service numbers is to reduce the number of jobs? However, in private enterprise one of the ways of reducing staff numbers is to get more productivity. Many of us feel that there is no indication of more productivity from civil servants.

Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government's aim is to cut out unnecessary functions and provide the rest more efficiently. The main emphasis of the recent cuts will be on increased efficiency. That meets my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that the manpower policies of the Civil Service will mean that the rules will be applied very rigorously on the departure of senior civil servants for lush boardroom jobs? Will he confirm that when Mr. John D. Lippett went to GEC, in answer to a question of mine about this the Minister said that Mr. Lippett had no dealings with GEC? Is he aware that that was not the case? Secret information revealed in the new New Statesman demonstrated that a meeting had been held with Sir Arnold Weinstock, Mr. Lippett and others to carve up Rolls-Royce. Will the Minister take this into account in his future manpower policies and stop this shift to lushly-paid jobs?

Mr. Channon: I am not prepared to comment on individual cases. This whole question is under discussion by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and the Government eagerly await its report.

Pension Indexation (Review)

Mr. Broce-Gardyne: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has yet concluded his review arrangements for independent reviewing of the Government Actuary's computation of the value of pension indexation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: A detailed announcement will be made very shortly. The inquiry will start work as soon as possible after that.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: This seems to be taking an unconscionable time. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Party was committed at the last general election to the proposition that the arrangements for index linkage of public service pensions should be put on a basis which bears comparison with the situation in the private sector?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that it is right for me to comment on what the inquiry may find. I can assure my hon. Friend that his tabling of this question has activated the Government's mind with great rapidity, and I hope that he will have a happy Whitsun when he sees what happens.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Frend aware that, with the recent increase in inflation, the amount of capital needed to buy a top civil servant's pension, even with early retirement, would be almost £500,000? Does not that stick in the gullets of most people?

Mr. Channon: I do not recognise that figure, but that is the sort of evidence that the inquiry will wish to consider. I hope that my hon. Friend will submit evidence to it.

Staffing Levels

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will meet representatives of Civil Service trade unions to discuss staffing levels in the Civil Service.

Mr. Channon: I have met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions twice in the last few weeks to discuss staffing levels. I am very willing to meet them again if they wish it.

Mr. Canavan: What is the sense in deliberately creating more unemployment by making thousands of civil servants redundant, then perhaps having to employ an extra 7,000 civil servants in order to deal with the extra people out of work?

Mr. Channon: There is no intention of making thousands of civil servants redundant. I have already made clear that we believe that the changes in the Civil Service can be achieved with a minimum of compulsory redundancies. Therefore, the hon. Member's premise is wholly wrong.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is inconsistent to try to cut staff numbers in the Civil Service while at the same time trying to attract more civil servants by applying the principle of comparability?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's views. I have nothing to add to my earlier answer about comparability. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to achieve a smaller Civil Service so that the country as a whole—and I believe that the majority of my hon. Friends share the aspiration—feels that it is getting value for money for the work that the Civil Service does.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister next meets Civil Service union leaders will he try to find out why in 1980 it takes four to five weeks for the assistant to the assistant to the assistant of a Minister's private secretary to forward a letter, when, 30 or 40 years ago, it took only three to four days?

Mr. Channon: I shall make a point of mentioning that at my next meeting with the Civil Service unions. However, I feel that some union leaders may say that they are over-burdened by the hon. Gentleman's written questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, originally announced for

consideration on Tuesday, will now be taken at the end on Thursday.

Mr. Dalyell: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make a statement on——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions must relate to the statement that was made, which concerns upholstered furniture—I believe.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the date of the recess, when shall we be told when the Government intend to apply sanctions against Iran and have an opportunity for debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to put a question to the Leader of the House on his short business statement?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, on upholstered furniture.

Mr. Farr: Will the business be limited to one and half hours, or, in view of the intense public interest, will the time be extended?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), I was sympathetic to the suggestion that we should have extra time. I suggested that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels. It has been agreed that there should be an extra half hour for the debate on upholstered furniture. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

PRISONERS (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor.
This matter is specific, in that the Home Secretary is illegally accommodating 150 prisoners at any one time in accommodation that has not been properly


certified for sleeping. In doing so, the right hon. Gentleman is breaching the terms of the Prison Act 1952 and the 1964 prison rules. That is happening today at Oxford prison, at two female remand centres, Low Newton and Risley, East Sutton Park borstal and at six detention centres, where prisoners are having to sleep in association rooms, classrooms, on corridor floors and in a library.
The matter is important. The Government, more than anyone should adhere to the law, especially when they parade themselves as a Government of law and order. The Prime Minister today said that the Government should set an example to others, but on this occasion the Home Secretary is breaking the law when he more than anyone should comply with it. There can be no excuse for breaking the law. In this instance the right hon. Gentleman is acting in a cavalier manner that can only bring the law into disrepute and disrespect. It makes a mockery of the exhortations of the Home Secretary and his Ministers to others to comply with the law. It is serious when anyone breaks the law. It is profoundly worrying when the Government do so.
The matter is urgent. The practice is going on now. It is a direct and inevitable consequence of overcrowding in our prisons. In addition, 150 prisoners are accommodated in police cells for up to two days because of lack of accommodation in our prisons. That state of affairs will continue unless and until the Home Secretary has the courage to

embark on urgent and radical action to reduce the massive overcrowding in our prison system.
A decent and responsible Home Secretary would have explained to the House the unusual and peculiar circumstances in which he finds himself. If he had a proper sense of responsibility, he might even resign. He should at least have the courtesy to explain to the House and the country why he is breaking the law and when the Tory lawbreakers will comply with it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor".
The hon. Gentleman made a serious speech and the House will have listened with concern to what he had to say.
As the House knows, it is not for me to decide whether this matter shall be debated. I have to decide only whether a debate shall take priority over our business today or tomorrow.
I regret that, having carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's representations, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (REFERENDUM)

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a Referendum on whether the United Kingdom should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community.
Next month we have the fifth anniversary of the 1975 referendum, when 42 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate voted in favour of continued membership of the Common Market. Next month we shall also have the first anniversary of direct elections to the European Parliament, when only 32 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate bothered to vote.
Pro-Marketeers will argue that in 1975 the majority voted to stay in the EEC. However, there are recent indications of a substantial switch in public opinion. Last month the Sunday Telegraph published a Gallup poll which indicated that 59 per cent. of the electorate would now vote to come out of the Common Market and only 27 per cent. would vote to stay in. The majority, including many who voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum, realise what many of us have said for many years—that our membership of the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. It has brought escalating prices—especially of food—destroyed thousands of jobs, had a crippling effect on our balance of payments and been ruinous for our economy.
In January 1973, when we joined the Common Market, inflation stood at 8 per cent. It is now 21·8 per cent, which is worse than for any other Common Market country. In 1973, unemployment on average was just over half a million. It is now more than 1½ million, with the worst figure for May since the war. In 1972, the year before entry, our balance of payments deficit with the Common Market was £647 million. In 1973, the first year of membership, it had more than doubled, to £1,399 million. Last year it had doubled again, to £2,735 million.
In 1973, our net contribution to the Common Market budget was £102 million. By last year it had risen to £959 million.
The Government's White Paper on public expenditure indicates that unless there is a radical change it will increase to £1,550 million by 1984. It is interesting to note that the only year in which there was a net gain out of the Common Market contribution was 1975, the year of the referendum, when it appears that the British public were lured by a £56 million net gain in our Common Market contribution.
I accept that the Common Market cannot be blamed for all our economic ills. Nevertheless, our membership has made things significantly worse instead of better. The common agricultural policy, for example, has contributed largely to our budget deficit and also to inflation through increased food prices. Yet, paradoxically, millions of tons of food are going to waste.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was coy about giving me up-to-date figures on the total amount and value of food in storage. However, with the help of the Library, I managed to get figures for October 1979. These show 353,000 tons of skimmed milk powder, at an estimated value of £240 million; 1·3 million tons of wheat, at an estimated value of £110 million; 54,000 tons of barley, at an estimated value of £5 million; 49,000 tons of beef, at an estimated value of £120 million; and 244,000 tons of butter, at an estimated value of £930 million. As hon. Members will know, a few weeks ago, there was a Common Market deal to sell 20,000 tons of surplus butter to the Russians at the knock-own price of 25p a pound—less than one-third of the price that the British housewife has to pay in the shops. It also appears that the British housewife may be expected to pay some of the price for any reduction in our Common Market contribution if a new deal is negotiated on farm prices leading to higher prices for food in the shops.
What is required is not simply a reform of the common agricultural policy or a reduction in our budgetary contribution. The fundamental problem is the Treaty of Rome—a charter for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The freedom of movement of investment inherent in the Treaty of Rome has meant an exit of investment and jobs from this country. If that is thought to be Socialist rhetoric, hon. Members should study the letter, dated 30 April, from the director-general


of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, sent to all hon. Members, stating:
 We feel that the ' Golden Triangle ' countries have taken a disproportionately large share of what investment has been available in recent years.
There has been an exodus of investment from this country, especially by multinational companies with a European connection. One thinks, in Scotland, of Massey-Ferguson. There was also yesterday's news from Talbot of another 1,300 threatened redundancies at Linwood. Whole industries have been crippled and jobs destroyed because membership of the Common Market reduces our ability to stop import penetration of the United Kingdom market. I can point to damage in my constituency to industries such as chipboard, foundries and paper. A few weeks ago I visited a paper mill that is due to close in the town of Denny. Both management and trade unions put forcefully to me the point that our membership of the Common Market meant a reduction in our share of the United Kingdom market—let alone the European market—rather than an improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"].
The pulp and paper industry faces difficulties exacerbated by our Common Market membership. I hope that pro-Marketeers such as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will reflect on the troubles facing the pulp mill in Corpach, where 450 jobs are at stake, as well as more than 1,000 jobs elsewhere in Scotland—including some in my constituency—in such occupations as forestry.
These events make a mockery of the slogans used during the 1975 referendum by pro-Market fanatics, that membership of the Common Market would mean jobs for the boys. What jobs? What boys? Perhaps the slogans refer to the 410 Euro-MPs and such people as Lord Soames, who became a vice-president of the Commission, and Roy Jenkins, the present president of the Commission and supposed head of that bureaucracy with an annual salary of more than £85,000. He has done quite well out of Common Market membership. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of people now realise that they were conned by the expensive and massive propaganda of the 1975 campaign.
It is significant that the pro-Market side, according to its own account, spent more than £1,500,000—an amount more than 10 times the amount spent by the anti-Market side. I propose in my Bill that there shall be maximum expenditure, similar to the limits placed on candidates at a general election, making for a fairer campaign and a fairer result.
I submit, finally, that my Bill is timely. There is to be another Common Market summit in Venice next month, when, for the third time, the Prime Minister will try to obtain a satisfactory reduction in our Common Market contribution. If last week's meeting in Naples is anything to go by, it looks as though she will be heading for a third failure. The right hon. Lady is on record as saying that she is in favour of referendums. I suggest that after the summit the people of this country should have their say and be given the chance to undo the mistake made in 1975.
To leave the Common Market would not mean shrinking into inward, narrow-minded nationalism. I am not a nationalist. I have never believed that co-operation between people should stop at Berwick-upon-Tweed, the English Channel, the Berlin Wall, or any other barrier, whether man-made or natural, but the Common Market has created a barrier round itself. It is a protectionist bloc consisting of only a minority of the peoples of Europe. The whole ethos of the club is not international co-operation but ruthless, cut-throat competition, where the rich members get richer and the poor members get poorer.
A referendum now would reverse the 1975 result and provide an opportunity for pursuing better domestic policies in industry, agriculture and fisheries and throughout the whole economy, as well as building valuable political and economic links on a wider international basis throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness (Johnston) has indicated to me that he wishes to oppose the motion.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I ask the House to reject the application of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to introduce the


Bill, on two grounds. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a referendum is in some way a noble, democratic device, introduced for high idealistic reasons by individuals who, above all else—whatever their personal views—wish to ensure that the public will is known and implemented. While conceding that there are a few hon. Members—I think especially of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)—who regard referendums as good things, I do not think that this is felt to be the case either in the House or in the country. Both in the House and in the country there is an acceptance of the value of representative government, whereby people study issues carefully and decide upon them, knowing that in due course they will be accountable at the polls. As a passionate advocate of proportional representation, I argue that the basis of this representative government is distorted, but this has nothing to do with the acceptance of the value of representative government per se.
Referendums are advocated only by those who believe that they would win a referendum at a particular time. [Interruption.] I wish that someone would try to silence Labour Members below the Gangway.

Mr. Bob Oyer: The hon. Gentleman is trying to gag us.

Mr. Johnston: For example, if we take issues of life and death, such as capital punishment and abortion, it is surely significant that those who advocate the return of capital punishment advocate a referendum, while those who are opposed to abortion do not. That is an indication of the fact that those who argue for the Bill, irrespective of the validity of the arguments, are interested only in ensuring that a reflection of public opinion is achieved at a time when they feel that their view holds water.
Secondly, if the Bill were accepted, it would be taken as a clear sign from the House that it wished to turn its back on the European Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When one considers the history of Europe in this century alone and the particularly dangerous instability of the wider world at the moment and the limited nature of our disagreements—I stress that—against the deep gulfs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be fair to the hon. Member for Inverness and allow him to make his case without constant interruptions.

Mr. Johnston: It would appear that those who are opposed to the Community feel that the noise of their interjections lends validity to their arguments. I do not believe that that is so.
The area of disagreement that we have entered into in the Community is limited compared with the deep gulfs in the world at large, which have been drawn to our attention by the Brandt Commission. Therefore, if we turned our back on the Community, it would be a profoundly negative act.
We have never really tried to make the Community work.

Mr. Cryer: It will not work.

Mr. Johnston: We can achieve nothing if we do not do it in a spirit of commitment.
I reject flatly the contention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire that everything that is wrong in this country is the fault of the Community.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire referred to the situation facing a pulp mill in my constituency. That has nothing to do with the Community. It is a good example of the fact that many hon. Members and others blame what is wrong on someone else.
All members of the Community face similar problems internally, while externally the threat to world peace is greater than at any time since 1939. Certainly there are differences among our nine countries, but I do not believe that their resolution will be achieved by rhetoric and nationalism. They will be achieved only by politics, fair argument and patience.
My late fellow-countryman, Dan McGarvey, of the boilermakers' union, was a good man in many ways, but I have never forgotten that he once said that if he had to choose between the well-being of Scottish boilermakers and the well-being of French peasants, he knew which side he would be on. That was


a profoundly erroneous analysis. Whatever we do in this country, we have a common interest in achieving, throughout this Continent and the world, the fair resolution of disagreements.
I believe that in the European Community we have an opportunity to do that and we should be foolish in the extreme to turn our back on it.

Division No. 319]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Adams, Allen
George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Graham, Ted
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Bell, Sir Ronald
Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Homewood, William
Proctor, K. Harvey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Race, Reg


Bradford, Rev. R.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sever, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kllroy-Silk, Robert
Sheerman, Barry



Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lambie, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leighton, Ronald
Short, Mrs Renée


Cook, Robin F.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Deakins, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spearing, Nigel


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John
Tllley, John


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marlow, Tony
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Farr, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Weetch, Ken


Field, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Michael


Fitt, Gerard
Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)



Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. Bob Cryer


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
and Mr. Ioan Evans




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew
Corrie, John


Allson, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Costain, A. P.


Alton, David
Bradley, Tom
Critchley, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brame, Sir Bernard
Dewar, Donald


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dover, Denshore


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunlop, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Belth, A. J.
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Burden, F. A.
Eggar, Timothy


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Butler, Hon Adam
Elliot, Sir William


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cadbury, Jocelyn
English, Michael


Best, Kelth
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cant, R. B.
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Biggs-Davison, John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynoa
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blackburn, John
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fitch, Alan

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 219.

Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Major, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Marcus
Marland, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawhlnney, Dr Brian
Silvester, Fred


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David
Stokes, John


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hooson, Tom
Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Howells, Geraint
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trotter, Neville


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pattie, Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Penhaligon, David
Wakeham, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Knox, David
Porter, George
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Lamborn, Harry
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Waller, Gary


Lamont, Norman
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wheeler, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Raison, Timothy
Whitehead, Phillip


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wickenden, Keith


Loveridge, John
Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


McCrindle, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Macfarlane, Nell
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rossi, Hugh
Mr. Russell Johnston


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter
and Mr. John Home Robertson


McQuarrie, Albert

Question accordingly negatived.

SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered, That the Report [15 May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

That the allotted day which under the Order (6 May] is given to the proceedings on Consolidation and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings


New Clauses and Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2.
6.30 p.m.


Amendments to Clause 3.
7.30 p.m.


Amendments to Clauses 4 and 5.
9.30 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Midnight

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY (No. 2) BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

REDUCTION OF COMPULSORY UP-RATING OF CERTAIN BENEFITS

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out Clause 1.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 20, in page I, line 16, leave out ' paragraphs 1 and 4 ' and insert ' paragraph 1 '.

No. 21, in page 1, line 18, leave out ' maternity allowance '.

No. 22, in page 1, line 19, leave out ' paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 ' and insert ' paragraphs 1 and 2 '.

No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out ' 2 '.

No. 3, in page 1, line 21, leave out ' invalidity pension '.

No. 23, in page 1, line 22, leave out ' and maternity allowance '.

No. 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out '4, 5,'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 2, leave out from ' benefit ' to ' and ' in line 4.

No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 6 to 12.

No. 7, in page 2, line 17, leave out from ' benefit ' to end of line 19 '.

Mr. Orme: This iniquitous Bill proposes a major change in social security policy, and clause 1 is at the basis of the Bill. It affects the unemployed, the sick, those who suffer from industrial injury, widows, the disabled, and other categories. The whole purpose of the Bill is to cut entitlement to benefits by five points.
The uprating that will take place in November this year will be a cut in real terms, because it will not meet the rate of inflation forecast by the Government,

let alone the rate of inflation as it may be in November.
We are talking of 24 November, which is two weeks later than the date on which benefit payments should have been made. In essence, that means that people will be robbed of their entitlement to two weeks' increases. That is rubbing salt in the wound. People will not receive their due entitlement under the law.
I stress that this Government have created a turmoil in the social security system. In reviewing sick pay the Government have introduced a Green Paper. It is not really a Green Paper. It is not a consultative paper; it is a White Paper. The Government intend that sickness benefit shall be available for the first eight weeks of sickness—payable through the employer—at a lower rate than the present national insurance rate.
A major inquiry into industrial injuries was undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Security. I quoted from the report in some detail in Committee. The interesting thing about that report—a report by officials—is that it came out overwhelmingly in favour of industrial injuries payments and underlined the need for them. Many people do not realise that industrial injuries payments are to be cut by this Bill. I am not prepared to use the word "abatement". We are talking about cuts, not abating benefits as such.
Apart from this review, we have changes in the supplementary benefits system and the prospect of taxation at some date in future and no guarantee when it is to take place, though 1982 is forecast. The Secretary of State is not in a position to give a firm date. We have all this against the current rate of inflation. The social security system is in disarray and is creating uncertainty for beneficiaries. The Bill will have a demoralising and frightening effect upon claimants and will undermine the whole system.
We are talking about the rights and entitlements of 22 million insured people. It is right to emphasise that clause 1, which we seek to debate, is the heart of the Bill. A great deal of publicity has been given to clause 6—an important clause to which we shall come later—but the Bill is about not clause 6 but the whole


basis of the social security system and the national insurance principle as such.
The Government forecast a rate of inflation of 16½ per cent., and we have to put that against 22 per cent. which is the current year-on-year figure. We do not know what the rate of inflation will be in November this year, but we have the Secretary of State on record in Committee casting doubt on whether that 16½ per cent. can be met. Therefore, we have a right to put a direct question to the Government. We talk about 16½ per cent., but in clause 1 we are talking about benefits for the unemployed, the sick and the disabled being uprated by only 11½ per cent. If the inflation rate is higher than 16½ per cent., it will mean considerably more than a 5 per cent. cut for beneficiaries. Therefore, we are entitled to ask whether, if there is a shortfall, if the Government's forecast does not meet 16½ per cent. and the rate is higher in November, the Government will make good that shortfall for the millions of beneficiaries who will be affected. It is bad enough for the unemployed, for those who have suffered industrial injuries and for widows to lose 5 per cent., but the prospect that they may lose considerably more is disastrous.
4.15 pm
I have some figures which I want to put before the House. If the rate of inflation were 18 per cent., the shortfall for a married couple on retirement pension would be 55p per week. If it were 19 per cent., the shortfall would be 95p per week. If it were 20 per cent., the shortfall would be £1·30 per week.
I turn now to unemployed single people. Unfortunately, there are far too many in our society at the moment. Under clause 1, they will have their benefits reduced by 5 per cent. If the inflation rate is 18 per cent., they will lose £1·20 a week. If it is 19 per cent, they will lose £1·35 per week. If the rate of inflation is 20 per cent., they will lose £1·55 a week. That is a considerable amount on a bene fit for a single person of only £20·65 per week. The Government must tell the House what their policy will be if there is a shortfall.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who was

the Secretary of State for Social Services in the previous Labour Government, is present. He will appreciate that when there was a shortfall under that Government they recommended that that shortfall be made good, and it was made good. Last year, because there was a shortfall in earnings, the Government refused to meet it. We are talking now not about earnings but about prices. If there is a shortfall in the prices forecast, we are entitled to know whether the Government will make good that shortfall.

The Secretary of State for Social Ser vices (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I think that it is right to put the facts on record. The right hon. Gentleman, perfectly properly, said that we are not talking about earnings. But he was plainly inaccurate in saying that the Government did not make good the shortfall last year. When the Government came into office and found that the pension uprating, which had been prospectively announced by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), would not be enough to meet the prices forecast of 17½ per cent., they added to that another 1·9 per cent., which was the shortfall on the previous year to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. We made up the shortfall for the long-term benefits——

Mr. Orme: Not for the short term.

Mr. Jenkin: No, not for the short term. There was no obligation to do that. But we made up the shortfall for the long-term benefits.

Mr. Orme: But not for the short term. In the Social Security Bill, the Secretary of State refused to make up the long-term benefit based on earnings. In the last month of the year earnings ex ceeded the benefit by about 1·9 per cent. The law still existed and it still does exist, as we know, because the Social Security Bill comes back tomorrow——

Mr. David Ennals: We are basically talking about short-term benefits. The Secretary of State dealt with long-term benefits. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the last up-rating the Government did not compensate in terms of the short-term benefits that the House is now debating?

Mr. Orme: That is absolutely correct. We feel that we are entitled to ask what


the Government will do against the current rate of inflation. It is bad enough for beneficiaries to have to wait two weeks longer than they should and to have 5 per cent. knocked off what they believe to be their entitlement, but it will be even worse, if there is a shortfall, if that shortfall is not to be met. This is absolutely crucial. We hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State on this issue.
I want to raise one or two important issues of principle in the clause. First, I refer to the effects on the national insurance principle and its relation to supplementary benefit. It was surely the desire of previous Governments, including Conservative Governments, to reduce the number of people on supplementary benefits, to remove the poverty trap, and to direct people, and their benefits, as of right, through the national insurance principle. That principle was cut into by the Government. That will have a lasting effect on the whole system.
We now see a deliberate move by the Government to shift people who are on national insurance benefits to supplementary benefit. The Government's initial forecast is of 110,000 people being transferred to supplementary benefit, and, with that, the creation of 1,000 additional jobs in the Civil Service. So much for tackling administrative problems and bureaucracy. No doubt the Opposition will want to discuss in more detail the national insurance principle—that has been established and accepted, as of right, within our society—and the effect that the Bill will have on it.
I shall be brief as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in this relatively short debate on this major clause. I want to come to the question of taxation. We think that we are entitled to ask the Government about this matter. Under pressure, not least from my hon. Friends and from pressure groups outside Parliament, the Government said that when economic circumstances permitted—the taxation situation in 1982 or 1983, or whenever the date would be—the question of invalidity benefit for the disabled would be considered. They said that they would take into account the five points when they assessed taxation and would bring up the rate to the correct amount. However, the Secretary of State did not give that guarantee for other benefits. If there is a five point

reduction this year and a five-point reduction next year, the benefits will be affected by Government policy. The Opposition want to know whether the Secretary of State will restore the benefits to their correct level in the light of taxation.
As a result of what the Government are now doing, people who do not pay tax will lose benefit. That is the crucial factor. Many of the pressure groups outside Parliament, not least the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Disablement Alliance, say that when taxation of benefits is introduced a sensible Government should consider the level of taxation and where it would apply. The Government are not doing that. They are deeming that the people will lose that money irrespective of whether they are in the tax bracket. The people who are most in need are being penalised under the provisions of the Bill.
Those are facts. The breaching of the national insurance principle and the effects of taxation and the other measures will initially have a ripple effect upon the 22 million people who pay for national insurance benefits at present. We are dealing with the working population of this country, who pay taxation and insurance contributions week by week. The magnitude of what the Government are attempting has not been fully understood in the country. Obviously, we must increasingly turn our attention to that.
I now want to face the argument that the Government make about the size of the social security budget and the cuts that must be made in public expenditure. The basic point is this: we are not discussing cuts in public expenditure on benefits for which people have not contributed. We are discussing transfer payments for people who contribute weekly towards benefits to which they are entitled. When they need those benefits, there is a transfer payment. Therefore, it is not a matter of a simple cut in public expenditure. We do not accept that it is. When we discuss transferring contributions to people entitled to benefit, we mean transfers to those who pay national insurance contributions and who are entitled to benefits.
I now turn to the subject of industrial injury and sickness pay. Under the clause


one of the most outrageous Government proposals is to cut injury benefit for people who need it at a crucial time in their lives. Unfortunately, with the speed of modern industrial technology, many people are seriously injured at work. Because of their injuries, they are often unable to follow their previous employment and, in many cases, will not subsequently receive the same wage or salary. Sometimes they must take more menial jobs. They take other work which does not carry the salary or wage which was previously earned.
That is bad enough in itself, but industrial injury also causes trauma. Industrial injury benefit does not put matters right. It is outrageous for the Government to say that they will cut industrial injury benefit in real terms at a time when a man or woman, because of family circumstances, need it. The Government have not given us a justifiable explanation.
My hon. Friends, who took part in a long debate through the night on industrial injuries benefits, will confirm that the case which the Opposition put to the Government was overwhelming. We based most of our arguments on the most recent paper prepared by the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We are talking about people who receive benefits and who therefore have a strong element of need. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the recipients of these benefits were the neediest, the poorest in society. I ask him what evidence he has for that.

Mr. Orme: These statistics about the people who claim benefits show that if people become unemployed or sick—often those who are on reasonable salaries—their standard of living is drastically affected. They are entitled to the State benefit to which they have contributed. When I was in industry, I was told not to mind about contributing to such benefits but to be thankful that I did not have to claim them. When one must claim a benefit, one needs it. The vast majority of people who claim such benefits need them. There is no argument about that.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: For the first time in 17 years I have heard

someone challenge the view that such people are the most deserving in our society.

Mr. Orme: The House will listen to what my hon. Friend says because of his experience.
I turn to the sensitivity about the word "cut". The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is a strong, hard-liner in these matters. She has little compassion. Her image has been badly dented. The Government prefer the word "abatement" to the word "cut". However, the Government are cutting in real terms benefits which are due to be uprated in November. In the short term there is to be a cut in the real value of child additions. That benefit is being reduced from £1·70 to £1·25. That is from the so-called party of the family, and it is a cut in cash.

Mr. Matthew Parris: If the Government were able, for instance through subsidies to the National Coal Board, to depress slightly the price of coal so that it did not rise during a year quite as much as price inflation, and if I were to go round my constituency saying that the Conservative Government had cut the price of coal, would the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be a straightforward and honest way of presenting the position?

Mr. Orme: That argument carries no weight at all. We are talking about benefits which are to be cut in real terms in November. Under the Bill the benefits are to be cut by 5 per cent., but the cut could be considerably more. We are talking about the living standards of people who are in need of benefit.

Mr. Raymond Ellis: The repercussions of the Bill are likely to have a spin-off effect in that they will lead to an increase in the price of coal because the National Coal Board will have to pick up the tab for sickness benefits, and so on.

Mr. Orme: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. He was forceful in Committee when dealing with clause 5 on retirement proposals for mine workers. I have no doubt that they will wish to pursue the issue in other directions. The Under-Secretary of State tried to slide away from the issue. We are due to debate it later.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who was present earlier but has left the Chamber, is somewhat right of Milton Friedman economically. In Committee he said:
 one does not have to wear one's heart on one's sleeve to have certain private misgivings about some of the sectors in which the reductions will fall."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24 April 1980; col. 269]
There are other Conservative critics. One said:
 No sane person would ever suggest penalising those in most need in order to hold down the public sector borrowing requirement … My conclusion is that one cannot rely on the economic decisions of this Government being taken with sensible social priorities in mind. In this context sensible means concentrating the effects of cuts on those who can afford them.
That was stated in the Conservative journal Crossbow, published in the spring of this year. In other words, sections of the Conservative Party are disturbed at the provisions in the Bill. Until a short while ago one would have associated the Secretary of State with the sentiments in that publication.

Mr. Reg Race: Did my right hon. Friend hear the broadcast on Radio 4 this morning in which there were exchanges between the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and others? Did he hear the hon. Member say that the Bill will increase fairness in society?

Mr. Orme: I heard the broadcast. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) handled the matter well.
I turn to the question of disablement benefits. What is proposed represents another attack on the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) hopes to deal with that in more detail when we discuss clause 3. Some of my hon. Friends wish to deal with that issue and I do not want to take up time by covering all aspects. That does not mean that I am not anxious about disabled people. About 600,000 people will be affected by the cut in invalidity benefit. The disablement groups wanted to see the Minister, but he would not see them until after the Committee stage had been completed. They believed that they could argue and talk with the Government and perhaps

convince them. They finished empty handed and outraged by the Bill's provisions.
In clause 1 the Government propose to dismantle vital areas of the Welfare State. They are undermining the entitlement to benefit. They are breaking down the national insurance system. They are making cuts in real terms for some of the most deserving cases in our society. They are creating confusion and disorganisation in the whole social security system.
The editorial in The Guardian today is close to the heart of the matter. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that at last we are getting some press coverage about issues other than clause 6. The opening paragraph of the editorial is crucial. It is headed "A dangerous real cut" and states:
 Today the Commons has its last opportunity of cushioning the biggest reverse the welfare state has suffered for fifty years. Not since the 1930s has any government attempted to cut social security. And indeed, since prices were falling in the 1930s the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, which reaches its report stage today, is even more drastic than the cuts which were introduced in the Depression. The sick, injured, unemployed and pregnant are all due to suffer a five per cent. reduction in their benefits next November because the Bill provides for an uprating which is five per cent, below the rate of inflation.
That brings the issue together.
A future Labour Government will be left to pick up the pieces. They will re-examine the whole of the social security system, restore the right to benefit, simplify the system, reduce the poverty trap, and guarantee that people share in the prosperity of the nation. We shall attempt to repair the damage, but, in the meantime, I am afraid that our people will suffer.

Mr. Ennals: I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I wish to begin my speech by registering my protest and my regret that a Bill of such importance is being debated in a rushed manner as a result of the guillotine. It is appalling that those who were not members of the Committee have had so little opportunity for debate. That is one reason why I shall be brief.
I wish to use this occasion to make an appeal, as quietly as I can, to the Secretary of State to think again about the


provisions in the Bill that affect the chronically sick and disabled, pregnant mothers, widows, those receiving invalidity pensions and those receiving disablement injury benefit. The decision to cut back on the uprating entitlement of those receiving unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalidity pensions, industrial injury benefit, and maternity allowance, together with the provisions in clause 3—which we shall discuss later—makes a major attack on what, up to now, have been the entitlements of the weakest section of our society. I agree with my right, hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that not only are they the weakest section; they have paid for those benefits over the years.
What is now being done is not only doing grave damage to the weakest in the community but is undermining the whole basis of the national insurance system that was introduced nearly 30 years ago.

Mr. Frank Field: I am slightly puzzled by the constant reference to the weakest section of our community. Is it not a fact that they are not the weakest section, because they are entitled to more generous national insurance benefits? The Bill will make them among the most vulnerable, because they will be pushed on to supplementary benefits.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the people who are most entitled to receive benefits, which should be protected against inflation. This clause will take away that right, and many will be forced on to supplementary benefit.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said, the voluntary organisation which represent the disabled are now very angry indeed. They have approached many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Some have listened, some have not. They said that they were used to a Government who always listened to them and consulted them about the needs of those who were least privileged in our society. Now, whatever their political balance, they are having to face a Government who, quite simply, have their ears closed to the needs of the disabled.
Whatever may have been our party differences over the past 30 or more years, the paramount task of Governments

and Secretaries of State of both parties has been to protect the needs of the chronically sick and disabled, those who have suffered industrial injury, and those, in increasing numbers, who have suffered the tragedy of unemployment.
As Secretary of State for Social Services from 1976 to 1979, with the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his tremendous battle for the needs of the disabled—I realised that this matter was among the most important of my responsibilities. I believe that I proved my convictions by the acts of the previous Labour Government. No Government in our history has done as much for the disabled as did the Labour Government who went out of power at the last election.
4.45 pm
I had every reason to believe—as did the people of Britain—that the policies of the Secretary of State and his party on the question of the disabled were similar to our policies. On 28 October 1978, when in opposition, the Secretary of State said:
 we regard more help for the disabled as a very high priority.
He simply set aside that priority. The Conservative research department said, on 5 February 1979
 Conservatives have singled out the disabled for priority within the social security budget ".
That commitment has been torn up. The Conservative manifesto, when published in 1979, said:
 Much has been done in recent years to help the disabled 
I thank the Conservative Party. It was nice to see a reference in the Conservative manifesto to what had been done to help the disabled—mostly by new benefits that had been introduced during the time that I and my right hon. Friends were in office. The manifesto continued:
 but there is still a long way to go.
The implication was that it would be a way forward, not backward. It continued:
 Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability, so that more disabled people can support themselves and live normal lives.
The Secretary of State knows that his measures will force more people on to supplementary benefit.
I do not believe that those who will be affected by this measure understand what will happen. There has been precious little publicity in the national press.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is important to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, his Under-Secretary and the local officers, have taken people suffering from heart diseases and mental sickness out of disablement benefit and forced them to sign the employment register, on the threat of losing supplementary benefit altogether if they did not sign. How can those people find employment when they are disabled? Why do the Government do such inhuman things to human beings?

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I know that other hon. Members have evidence of that happening. The generality of the public in Britain, especially those who will be affected by the Bill, do not understand what Parliament is proposing to do and what the Secretary of State is trying to force through Parliament. If they knew, they would stand up and speak against it.
I do not believe that in his travels around the country, speaking to local Conservative Parties, women's conferences and so on, the right hon. Gentleman has told them exactly what cuts in public expenditure mean. Has he been spelling out exactly which people would be affected primarily by the cuts in public expenditure? He has not.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that two hours ago I was addressing a conference organised by RADAR, at which about 400 people were present representing many disablement organisations. I set out the reasons for the cuts, the state of play on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the central relationship between the economic situation and what we can afford. That was well received and I was well applauded by that conference.

Mr. Ennals: It may be that RADAR showed the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy that I suppose any respectable organisation would show to a Minister, but that is all that it was. I know and

he knows that RADAR and the many organisations involved with it are deeply angry at what the Government are doing. They were not surprised by what the right hon. Gentleman said, because one of his earliest utterances in office was that the disabled could not expect to be excluded. It is one thing to say that they could not expect to be excluded from the cuts in public expenditure and another thing to pick on them, which is what the Government are doing, to pay for benefits for those who are at the upper end of the scale.
The Secretary of State has made a serious error of judgment in making the weakest, those in receipt of national insurance benefits, pay for the easing of the tax burden on the strongest. If he proceeds unmoved down the path that he has set himself, I believe that he will go down in history as the Secretary of State who began the dismantling of the rights inherent in the principle of the Welfare State, which goes way back to the Beveridge report known as "From the Cradle to the Grave ".
There is never any disrespect in the House for Ministers who have second thoughts. I am not referring to the decision taken in the House on economic sanctions against Iran. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State had second thoughts on sight tests. I think that we all gave them credit for doing so. There were second thoughts on the payment of weekly payment benefit. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been committed to that proposal.
I hope that during the course of this debate and when the Bill goes before another place he will seriously think again. Now is the right time for him to think again. That is so for three good reasons. First, what is happening to the rate of inflation? The right hon. Gentleman said two or three months ago that the Government estimated that the rate would be 16½ per cent in November. He knows that there is no chance of the rate being 16½ per cent. in November. He knows that it is now 22 per cent. and that it will increase. I accept that later there will be a small fall. I do not suggest that the rate will increase for ever. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that a 16½ per cent. uprating would not cover retirement pensioners let alone short-term beneficiaries.
Secondly, there is something bizarre and almost ghoulish about doctors having a 30 per cent. increase in remuneration when their patients are having to accept an 11½ per cent. increase in their benefits. There is something sick about that contrast. I am attacking not the doctors but the Secretary of State for putting the doctors in that position. There is something sickening about doing so at a time when the right hon. Gentleman well knows that the Secretary of State for Employment—or is it for unemployment? I am not sure—has made it clear that unemployment will increase steadily. Therefore, the number affected by the measures in the Bill will steadily increase.
The right hon. Gentleman should think again. I say that apart from the inhumanity of his judgment. I believe that there will be deep anger when the British people learn what the rate of inflation is in November and what the increase in benefit is to be. The right hon. Gentleman should take that into consideration as well as all the other arguments that will be advanced during the debate. The time for him to reconsider is now.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I do not wish to go too far along the road covered by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), save to say in defence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security that I was present at the meeting to which he referred. My right hon. Friend fairly pointed out the need for some of the measures in the Bill. The challenge that was issued to him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was that they never explained what had to be done. That was not so.
The amendments that I have tabled seek to exempt maternity allowance from the reduction in the compulsory uprating of benefits provided for in clause 1. In making that suggestion I am not going behind my support for the principle that social security benefits that are designed to replace income should be drawn into the tax system.
All working women now pay full national insurance contributions. When they become pregnant they may claim the maternity allowance for 11 weeks before the baby is born, and the allowance is paid for 18 weeks from the date of the

first payment. In reply to a question dated 15 April, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security indicated that in the past year for which figures were available—namely, 1978,½277,000 payments of maternity allowance were made, and that over 50,000 recipients had annual incomes not exceeding their personal tax allowances. Therefore, they paid no tax, anyway.
The allowance is now worth £1850 and it is to be increased to £20·65 in November. The abatement of 5 per cent. represents £1 a week. That may not seem very much, but if there are 285,000 women all being made subject to the reduction of £1 per week for 18 weeks, the approximate saving is £5 million.
I shall concentrate on the 50,000 women who draw the benefit and have earned income below their personal tax allowances. The proposals are part of the package to bring social security benefits into the tax system. However, the clause as drafted in effect taxes an allowance that was designed to replace income when that income is not taxable.
At first sight one would think that supplementary benefit should be available for those women with earned income below tax allowances. However, a married woman is deemed to be supported by her husband, so supplementary benefit does not follow automatically unless their joint resources fall below requirements, to use the technical phase.
If my right hon. Friend will not concede the point of the amendment, I ask him, as did the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), what will happen when the maternity allowance is brought into the tax system in April 1982. On 29 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State properly said:
 when it comes to tax, subject to the availability of resources "—
we are dealing with invalidity pension in this context—
 we shall put it back to what it would have been had it stayed in step with retirement pensions this November."—[Official Report, 29 April 1980, Vol. 983, c. 1132.]
I ask my right hon. Friend respectfully whether he will do likewise with the maternity allowance. Will he restore it in April 1982 to the value that it would have had if its uprating had continued in line with the other social security


benefits—namely 16½ per cent. and not 11½ per cent.?
Without disrespect to the manner in which the Bill has been presented, and the way in which it has been handled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, these problems indicate what a jungle social security law is today.

Mr. Field: Worse.

5 pm

Mr. Alexander: Each successive Bill compounds the obscurity of the previous Bill. Surely the time has come to consider scrapping the social security system as we know it, and substituting for it a national minimum income, to which all those in need would be entitled. We could pursue a means test more fairly if we were courageous enough to do so. I am not opposed to cuts in public expenditure, but there should be more rationality in our social security system.
It is ridiculous that the child benefit and maternity grant are available automatically to families with incomes of, say £20,000 a year, without any note being taken of their financial circumstances. At the same time, without my amendment, clause 1 of the Bill will save £5 million at the expense of the lower socio economic classes who have non-salaried jobs and who are probably employed in manual work and are hourly paid, and for whom a 5 per cent. reduction is not inconsiderable. Why should all mothers be able to claim £4 a week for every child under 16? About 13 million children will qualify this year for child benefit, at a total cost of £2,585 million—according to the Government's blue paper. At a conference this afternoon——

Mr Peter Bottomley: The reason is that the total level of child support has been reduced by 30 per cent. compared with its level 25 years ago. There has been a large cut. We may find greater agreement if we address our attention to the "waste" in personal allowances.

Mr. Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend.
It is very expensive to pay child benefit completely across the board. Although I gave the figure of £2,585 million—according to the Government's blue paper—my right hon. and learned Friend the

Chancellor indicated at a conference this morning that we are now spending £3·3 billion. I am suggesting that £5 million could have been found in another way. when the cost of child benefit is of such an order.

Mr. Field: Is there not a danger, after a period when families have been discriminated against by successive Governments, of trying to find money for projects which favour families with children by cutting back on benefits to other families with children? Should we not direct more attention to the benefits received by childless people?
I was interested in comments about the loss of revenue in child benefits. The White Paper on public expenditure shows that loss of revenue from the two major tax allowances equals £10 billion. The group who received those tax allowances have benefited most over the last 20 years. Should we not look for money from the childless to support families with children, and not try to save money by cutting benefits to other families with children, however important the project.

Mr. Alexander: That raises further considerations. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. But at the top end, people in receipt of child benefit do not need it.
The administration, and therefore the cost, of the present social security system is horrendous. We are taxing with one hand and, with different offices and different administrators, we are paying out with the other. When that happens, it shows that the tax thresholds should be raised still further, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already done. If it is too simple to conceive a minimum income administered by one set of civil servants only, there should be some means testing of social security benefits at the top end, and the poorly paid maternity allowance claimants should not have to suffer the abatement in this way.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that he is piloting legislation through a jungle, and I hope that he will resolve to institute further reforms along the above lines for the benefit of genuine claimants and the nation as a whole.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I shall make a brief speech,


lasting no longer than three or four minutes. I joined the debate a little late, through no fault of mine. I could not believe the intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) by a Conservative Member who asked whether there was any evidence that disabled people were the poorest in our society. I nearly fell over the Bench. I could not believe it. It was one of the most staggering questions I have ever heard.
I constantly move among disabled people. A sad feature is that they do not complain about their poverty to people who are well off and comfortable, because they have a great deal of dignity and the disabled do not go begging. Understandably, it is people who do not know the disabled or who are not disabled who ask such stupid questions. As the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for the disabled know, the reason why disabled people are being hit is that they are powerless. That is why this action is so disgusting. The disabled are powerless. They have no one to speak for them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) who did such a splendid job when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, spoke about the previous Labour Government's record. He spoke about the doctors receiving a 30 per cent. increase in salary. In the next few months trade unionists will fight for increases of 20 per cent., 21½ per cent. or 25 per cent.—or whatever is the rate of inflation. They will get it, because this Government simply cannot walk on trade unionists. But they can walk on the disabled without a fight. They know that, and they should be ashamed of themselves. People who cannot struggle or fight come to Members of Parliament in the most rational, dignified and restrained way. When the Minister with responsibility for the disabled said in an intervention a few moments ago that he was applauded at a RADAR conference, what did he mean? Did it mean that the people at that conference supported what the right hon. Gentleman said? What it meant is that disabled people are courteous people. It meant not only that they are courteous but that they lack confidence—the confidence to fight for themselves. They therefore lean over

backwards to be agreeable. This lack of confidence is caused by their disability and by their poverty.
I do not like people asking for the resignation of Ministers, because that is often a cheap political gimmick. However, I want to ask the Minister responsible for the disabled whether he really feels that he should stay on in his job, given this cut—and it is a cut; he has used the word himself—in the living standards of disabled people. I am not making a personal attack. I would not do so. But, in terms of the Minister's job of looking after disabled people, I do not feel that he can stay on the Front Bench and condone the measures in this Bill.
The Minister's boss, the Secretary of State, is an honourable man, and he helped the disabled when he was out of office. In fact, I have worked with him. He must think again, because he simply cannot damage the living standards of disabled people who are living in acute poverty and hold his head high in this House. I beg him to change his mind.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Following up for a moment the words of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I think that it is worth noting that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was only phrasing in a slightly different way the points made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about moving from insured to non-insured, from national insurance benefit to supplementary benefit. I think that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South were, perhaps, on consideration, a little fierce. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North did was to ask a question, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled, in his intervention, was making the point that he had gone to the conference and explained the reasons for doing certain things, and that that had been, not necessarily approved of, but heard. The important point always is that cases should be made in advance.
Most people know that it is not my habit to make speeches which have already been made, whether from one side of the House or the other. Therefore,


I should like first to assure the Government of my support, at least on this amendment I also go a stage further. If right hon. and hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and some others, are arguing that the increases which will follow the passage of the Bill will be below the level of inflation, I must ask what they will be arguing for during the coming pay round. Will they be arguing that the way in which one can reduce the impact of a 5 per cent. abatement is to try to encourage all of us to get our pay settlements—not necessarily our claims, but our settlements—abated by 5 per cent.? Or shall we be doing what some people appear to be suggesting, which is to argue that if the disabled and others are unable to maintain their standard of living, they will give every support for the lunatic policy of having pay claims, a year after the level of real incomes has risen by 6 per cent., trying at least to achieve that again or further?
It seems to me that we need to bring our bleeding hearts out into the open and talk about the general economic effects on the groups for whom we are arguing and try to look at the impact of our policies and actions in the rest of our lives, whether as trade unionists, politicians or people in industry.

Mr. Field: Mr. Field rose——

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals rose ——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose——

Mr. Bottomley: I give way first to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Mr. Field: I should like to pose a question. I am not out of sympathy with the argument that is being put forward, but when it is put to groups of workers, one very relevant question is posed, to which I have no answer. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer it for me.
If, for example, one says to Ford workers "Do not push for the whole of the wage increase that you would like because we wish to ensure a real increase in benefits for the disabled, the unemployed and the sick", the question comes back "By what mechanism can the increase that we forgo be channelled to those groups? "

Mr. Bottomley: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and with no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) or the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I am glad that I picked him. The answer is that at present this does not happen and cannot happen. The reason is that successive Governments, including the present Government, have not laid on the line what are the considerations which will affect the level of benefits in advance.
The most important point—besides legislation, which may or may not be amended—is that if one takes the question of child benefit and the reduction of the real level of child support over the last 25 years, one must ask at what stage any Government have said what considerations they will use in advance. It is no good saying, after a year of prece-dented or unprecedented inflation "We are sorry, but we cannot afford to bring the level back to what it was in 1955." What we ought to be doing is not only talking early enough about the relationships between pay increases and growth, between pay increases and profit, or between pay increases and unemployment; we should try to lay out some of the medium-term ambitions of the Government both in terms of benefits and in terms of other areas of Government expenditure or transfer payments.
I do not believe that this has happened. I do not believe that the previous Government or the present Government have done it.

Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the question of benefits? When it comes to wage negotiations, levels of the RPI and so on are all part of them, as they were in the award for doctors and dentists. If the inflation rate is something totally different from 16½ per cent. in November, will the hon. Gentleman then still feel that it would be right to make a 5 per cent. cut, below 16½ per cent., for those covered by the clause?

Mr. Bottomley: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have noticed that there had not been any reference to the 5 per cent. issue on this clause. To be helpful to the House and, I hope, to the country, I am trying to make non-partisan points


about a far better way of approaching the whole of this subject.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I shall not give way. The debate will continue for only another one and a quarter hours, and the first two speakers took up a fan-amount of time. I should like to sit down shortly, having made the point that if we are really concerned about the level of increases in benefits and about the relationship between incomes from benefits and incomes from earnings, and about trying to reduce the increase in unemployment—which appears to be continuing, though not accelerating—we ought to start recognising the influence of pay settlements as well. I have absolutely no doubt that if the whole country settled for half of what it is likely to settle for during the next 12 months, or if we had all settled during the last 12 months for half of what we have settled for, not only would we now be more prosperous but we would find that we were able to do more for, or to take away less from, people who are presently getting certain benefits.
When we start talking about free markets, let us talk about free markets and ideas, and let us try to encourage each other to listen and to find a bipartisan approach that will help Governments of both major parties.
Finally, what I regret most of all is the whole area of child benefit being left out of this discussion. Perhaps I may make one partisan point—although I have tended to make a number. It is to say again how sorry I am that, to my knowledge, almost the whole of the parliamentary Labour Party forgot to vote in favour of—or actually voted against, on some occasions—the indexation of child benefit. That is the one benefit which is not being attacked, reduced, abated or dealt with in any way by the Bill. We did not get the opportunity of persuading the parliamentary Labour Party, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), to vote for it.
What has happened is that over a period there has been a far greater abatement, reduction or cut in child support

that the 5 per cent. covered by the Bill. Any hon. Member who speaks today and does not recognise that ought to recognise that 14 million children and 14 million parents have been suffering even more than anyone who will be affected by the Bill.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) compared the social security scheme with a jungle. However, one sometimes finds a clearing in a jungle. The Secretary of State and I have come to a clearing on perinatal care. The Secretary of State is convinced that better perinatal care will reduce perinatal mortality and handicap. Indeed, he shared a platform with me in Trafalgar Square at the inauguration of the "Save the Baby" campaign. We have both given evidence to the Select Committee on perinatal care.
We have stressed the need for early detection, early treatment, resuscitation techniques and intensive care units. Above all, we stressed that more money should be given to pregnant ladies if perinatal death and handicap is to be prevented. If the Secretary of State supported that campaign he must have supported that, because it was one of the five points involved. Those points were made loud and clear. The pregnant lady in social class 5 is particularly affected.
It has been argued that pregnant women in that class will receive the necessary money in 1983, when the tax arrangements have been brought to fruition. There will be a lot of pregnant ladies between now and 1983. The overwhelming majority of pregnant ladies will be in social classes 3, 4 and 5. The perinatal mortality and disability rate varies from about 26 per 1,000 in the worst areas, to about 6·8 or 7·0 per 1,000 in the better areas.
Pregnant women will be affected by the abatement. As has been said, abatement is a polite term for cut. The severe difficulties facing pregnant women will be compounded. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out that the disabled and poor would be most affected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) pleaded with the Secretary of State. He asked him to reconsider this provision. It


could be modified in the other place. The hon. Member for Newark tried to pick out maternity benefits. I share his concern. However, he and I may have specialised in this subject. Other hon. Members might pick out other needs.
I urge the Secretary of State to come back and to tell me that Britain's recovery does not depend upon this provision. Is the Secretary of State claiming that our recovery depends on saving 90p a week for 18 weeks? Is that the basis of our recovery?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should not get carried away with the idea that the country is in a mess. There are about £15,000 million worth of North Sea oil assets round the corner. There would be a lot more money if Britain owned the oil. The Opposition should not fall for the idea that the country is in an economic mess. I have been involved in politics for 30 years. Every year Governments say that there is a political and economic crisis. They say that workers must pull in their belts and that the disabled must do without. They always tell us that there is a crisis. They always tell us that there will be jam tomorrow. My hon. Friend is wiser than that. He should understand that the Government are trotting out the same old idioms. Get rid of them!

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am delighted that my hon. Friend will no longer have to consider accepting invalidity benefit. I am glad that he has recovered and that he is back to his old form. However, I am addressing my remarks to the Government. It is true that North Sea oil could assist us. However, if we are to assist the coming valhalla—the great day that is about to dawn—we must ask whether that valhalla depends on 90p a week for 18 weeks. That is what the Secretary of State said.
In the jungle clearing, we identified one sector in which some good could be done. We have been told that the perinatal mortality rate has fallen. We must not claim too much credit. However, the reduction is due partly to the fact that there have been several debates on this subject. They have been reported in the press. As a result, people have become aware of their needs and requirements. That is great. The Secretary of State should not put a hiccough in those statistics. If there

is a three-year gap, it will result in inadequate funding, and an increase in perinatal deaths. More money should be given. If a target can be identified from which massive social benefits will accrue, we should go for that target. The Government are burning it.

Mr. John Hannam: I shall speak briefly, but as forcibly as possible. Throughout my 10 years in Parliament, I have worked—with hon. Members from all parties—for a cause that is as worthwhile as any that I have come up against. We have sought to give a reasonable chance to the handicapped and disabled, and to ensure that they can lead lives that are as normal as possible. We have tried to ensure that they have family lives, mobility, education. We have tried to ensure that—as far as possible—they can train and work as others do. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) stated, we must try to prevent handicap through research and perinatal care.
That 10-year period coincided with the development of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Successive Governments have made considerable progress towards helping the disabled. I am proud of that progress and of the involvement of both myself and other hon. Members. We started from scratch in 1970. We are still endeavouring to catch up. We have not yet created the perfect world or system of social care for the handicapped and disabled. One could give many examples of the barriers that still exist in areas such as housing, access, education and social care. However, we have managed to lift the disabled and handicapped out of the dark holes of neglect into the light of a caring society. I am committed to that cause and I make no apology for that.
The Government have attempted to create a healthier balance between private and public expenditure. I support the underlying need to create more resources. Such resources are necessary if we are to have a healthier and more dynamic economy. I accept with regret the painful process of cuts, in the knowledge that they will lead to the creation of more resources for the disabled, the sick and the needy. They will also create more resources for the health service and for the welfare system. While the Government are reshaping their spending policies,


some essential safeguards must be applied. The Conservative Party gave a commitment to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I do not believe that a near-bankrupt industrial economy can go on indefinitely guaranteeing cost-indexed benefits and wages. The previous Administration found this out to their cost. In that context, I express overall support for the painful but necessary remedies that the Government have applied.
5.30 pm
However, minimum standards and priorities must be maintained, or permanent damage will be caused and the years of work and expenditure will be wasted. This 5 per cent. abatement, however integral a part it is of the overall departmental cuts programme, will fall below those minimum standards, and therefore it cannot be allowed to continue for more than one year. Many disabled people on the higher level of invalidity benefit could lose about £2 a week at a time when they are suffering and accepting local personal social services charges and cuts. The overall objective of a disablement cost allowance to cover the unavoidable extra costs faced by the handicapped will be set back even further by what is, by all accounts, a rough and ready saving.
I make it clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am prepared to accept this harsh lowering of priorities only for this year of economic crisis. In fact, I believe that the Bill provides for only one year, and in succeeding years the Minister must think again. He has already given the welcome assurance that these benefits will be uprated again in 1983 by whatever parity is lost with the retirement pension. I, and many of my hon. Friends, do not like this measure, but we accept it reluctantly for one year ahead as part of the Government's overall recovery programme for the economy. I cannot possibly countenance a continuation of this discrimination against the disabled into 1981–82 and 1982–83. I hope that in his reply my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he takes serious note of this declaration of intent and that he will restate in stronger terms his intention, regardless of the Treasury pressures, to restore the benefit level to that of the retirement pension.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also give close consideration to a number of other points. Invalidity benefit is a long-term benefit meeting long-term needs. It is not a short-term benefit to be treated as such. Nearly all those who receive it will never be able to work again. The benefit is one of a group of benefits for people who are disabled or chronically sick. The others are the non-contributory invalidity pension, the war and industrial pensions and the attendance allowance. All of these benefits are rising by the full 16½ per cent. But the invalidity benefit will go up by only 11½ per cent.—well below the inflation rate. Why has this split occurred? Surely we should bring all the disablement benefits together under one general cost allowance, instead of widening the rag bag of invalidity and disablement benefits.
I conclude by putting my marker down on this issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will exert all the pressure he can on the paymasters in the Treasury to ensure that this is the one and only year when this discriminatory abatement of benefit will occur. I expect him to restore the value of the benefit at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly within the next two years. In any case, I hope he will not go any further down this road next year. That would be too much for those of us who are involved in campaigning and fighting for the interests of the disabled. We cannot stand by and watch disabled people lose the hard-won ground of the last 10 years' campaigning.

Mr. Clement Freud: This debate has about it an air of déjà vu. A great deal of what has been said has been discussed before, both at Second Reading and in Committee. But the fact that we have discussed it before makes it no less relevant to discuss it again.
We must look at what is being done to the recipients of invalidity and maternity benefit in this country in the light of what was promised. It is right to look at the Conservative manifesto, which says:
 We will honour the increases in retirement pensions.
It is right to look at the abatement in the light of a Conservative manifesto statement which says:
 It is wrong to discourage people to wish to work after retirement age, and we will


phase out the ' earnings rule ' during the next Parliament The Christmas Bonus, which the last Conservative Government started in 1972, will continue.
I doubt the honesty of saying that the Christmas bonus will continue when there is an artificial retraction of two weeks to enable the Government to recoup exactly the amount of money which is being given back as a Christmas bonus. That is just like picking a man's pocket and then presenting him with ten-twelfths of what has been rifled from him and saying "This is your Christmas bonus, congratulations."
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made a valid point about the perinatal situation. I believe that the Government are wrong not to take a long-term financial view. I was privileged one day last week to raise a matter on the Adjournment at three o'clock in the morning—none of us has had a lot of sleep lately. The subject that I raised was that of the problems of Down's syndrome children. I pointed out to the Minister at the time that it costs £100,000 for the lifetime of any one Down's syndrome child. The contributions that the Government make towards the Down's Children's Association is only £3,500 a year, when that association has proven success in getting children into educationally subnormal, "M" rather than "S", schools, at the relevant saving.
I return to the amendments. I want to place on record that what is being done is being done against the Conservative manifesto promises. The disadvantaged are being further disadvantaged at a time when there is a rise in expenditure on defence, a 32 per cent. increase in remuneration to doctors, and a £4 billion tax concession to high tax payers; when our own pay has gone up without any abatement, when Princess Anne gets more money without abatement, and when Mr. Ian MacGregor gets more money. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) suggested that the Minister with responsibility for the disabled should resign. Perhaps we could transfer him for some exorbitant fee and use that money to abate the abatements. It seems totally wrong to make this section of humanity suffer when so many other sections, including ourselves, are getting away with it.
I am not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and

ask for an assurance that next year, the year after, some time or never, the Secretary of State will change his mind. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose every clause in this Bill because we feel that the wrong people are suffering. Even though I do not believe that we are as disastrously off as many people insist, there are people who are better able to take cuts than those whom the Secretary of State now seeks to disadvantage by the Bill.

Dr. McDonald: I wish to refer first to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) when he sugegsted that, if we were really concerned about the incomes of the disabled, we should be prepared to lower our own wage demands in the coming year. The hon. Gentleman's argument is fallacious. It assumes that wage increases are the sole cause of increased inflation. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's expressions of loyalty to his Government, they do not share his view. They place the blame for increased inflation solely on increases in the money supply during any one year.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was fallacious for other reasons. He forgets that the income of the disabled has been deliberately cut by Government policy. They have not only failed to raise those incomes in line with inflation during the coming year but their actions have caused inflation, with increased gas and electricity prices and prescription charges, which fall heavily on many who claim invalidity benefit. They are not entitled to have prescription charges waived, because of the exclusive definitions. The Government impose those burdens on the disabled. Inflation does not depend on the wage earner reducing his wage demands and the money by magic being transferred to the disabled.
The Government are making deliberate decisions on how our vast resources should be deployed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out. Such decisions were taken in the Budget and are being taken in this Bill. They are clear. So far this Government have used our vast resources to make tax concessions that have almost entirely benefited the better off. To help implement that policy the Government have cut the incomes of the unemployed, the sick, people injured at work, pregnant


women and the disabled in receipt of invalidity pensions. The Government's record is appalling. I do not know how the Secretary of State and the Minister can say that there is acceptance of these measures among the groups representing the disabled. We know that many disabled people are already hard pressed. We know that from our experience in constituencies and from the briefs that these groups send us. I cannot imagine how the Government expect those people to cope with an effective cut in their income when inflation is likely to be above the Government's forecast of 16 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out what underlies the Government's policies. They attack the old, young, disabled and sick, who are not sufficiently organised and lack economic power to retaliate. They hope to push their policies to benefit further those whom they truly represent. They have no shred of respectable justification to pick on invalidity benefit in so doing. Two groups are particularly affected—the disabled and the long-term sick. Those people are struggling to live on an inadequate weekly income. Their children also suffer. The Government say that they want to encourage people to work, and they therefore cut unemployment and other benefits. However, what justification do they have for attacking the living standards of children of such people?
5.45 pm
With even the predicted rate of inflation child support for those on invalidity benefit, widows' benefit or retirement pension will be effectively cut by 6·1 per cent. as child support is being increased by only 10·4 per cent. I shall translate that into cash terms, which are easier to understand. I hope that people will then rise in revulsion against a Government who take away money from the sick and their children.

Mr. Alan Clark: Like they did on 14 May.

Dr. McDonald: For a couple with two children on invalidity benefit the weekly loss will be £3·35, which is £174·20 for the whole year. A couple with four children will lose £252·20 over the whole year. A childless couple will lose only

£96·20. The Government cannot justify such mean actions, which hit people who cannot defend themselves and who sorely need the support to which they are entitled. The invalidity pension and the support attached to it should be paid at the proper rate.
The Government talk of the need to make these benefits taxable and to bring them into line with other benefits and taxable income generally. They deliberately overlook the fact that 400,000 people currently receiving invalidity benefit have incomes that do not reach the tax threshold. They cannot justify such action merely to fulfil a principle of abstract justice. The Government wish to take resources from those who are in no position to defend themselves and to give those resources to the wealthy, who do not need them.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I apologise for rising to speak when I was not privileged to hear the Front Bench speeches on these amendments. I was about constituency business. Hon. Members who served on the Committee know that I was most assiduous in attendance and participation at that time.
My meeting was valuable. Among the ladies to whom I spoke were some who were in receipt of long-term benefits, such as retirement and widows' benefit. They said that over a long period they have been disadvantaged compared with others on long-term benefits, who are listed in clause 1 and whose benefits have not previously been subjected to taxation or abatement. There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that the introduction of taxation of all long-term benefits will bring a greater feeling of equity among those who often live next door to each other in the same type of house and have the same sort of expenses even though their benefit arises from different sources which were not necessarily planned to give different levels of income.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I was asked to make sure that I left time for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who, I know, wishes to speak.
I should like to make a point about the choice of words of those Opposition Members who have described Government policy as an attack on particular groups. That is a highly unfortunate choice of phraseology when no one from the Government Benches, either on Second Reading or in Committee, has indicated the slightest pleasure in the task undertaken in the Bill.
It is the task of any Government to deal with problems that arise, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Duties are undertaken with joy or because they are necessary. I do not accept the argument that the savings made by the first two clauses of the Bill are too small to be considered. I know that Opposition Members will make similar attacks on each clause. It would be fair to argue against an abatement in only one section of the Bill but Opposition Members are attacking at each point. They fail to indicate where it would be possible to make equal savings if changes were to be made in this part of the Bill.
Conservative Members should make clear that we are tackling a problem the solution of which we believe to be unpleasant but necessary and that we are acting in a spirit of trying to achieve equity among those who live on long-term benefits, an equity which will be more nearly achieved when we reach a situation of taxation. A 5 per cent, abatement is not a satisfactory alternative, as I know my right hon. Friend recognises. It would be even less acceptable to continue with the present anomaly for the next two or three years, untouched and unchanged, at this time of economic crisis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his help. It would be unwise for any hon. Member to pre-empt my selection. Mr. Frank Field.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. We are discussing the most significant measure that the Government have introduced in this Parliament. Indeed, clause 1 is the most significant clause that we shall see in the whole of the Parliament. The Bill marks the end of post-war politics which were based on the assumption that the Welfare State could be built on an ever-increasing national income. With or without this Bill,

Opposition Members would have faced a major challenge in deciding how to behave in a period of slow or nil growth. I hope that we should have gone about the job differently, but the challenge would have been real.
The basis of our beliefs, I suppose, is best spelt out in Anthony Crosland's book "The Future of Socialism" where he talked about having our politics on the cheap. Everything could be done from growth. There would be no hard decisions. Growth could be used to pay for the continued expansion of the Welfare State.
With the end of growth, the Labour Party would have needed to consider whether we were serious about redistributing existing resources or bringing in similar measures to this Bill.
Another significant factor about this Bill is the link it makes between poverty and riches. Sixty years ago, R. H. Tawney reminded us—
 what thoughtful rich people call the problems of poverty, thoughtful poor people call, with equal justice, the problem of riches".
This Bill, particuarly clauses 1 and 4, cannot be viewed separately from the two Budgets that the Government have so far introduced. Some hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that we are now in a period of considerable difficulty in which everyone took cuts. One has only to look at what happened in the two Budgets of this Government.
The first Budget cut taxation by £4·5 billion. The richest 7 per cent. picked up £1,560 million. The tax cuts were smaller in the second Budget, but still the richest 2 per cent. took 14 per cent. of the net tax reductions. It is not true that this measure, particularly clauses 1 and 4, are necessary to pay for cuts that all are experiencing. This Bill, in particular, is necessary to help pay for the tax cuts in the first Budget and the Budget earlier this year.
I recognise that I have only a limited time in which to speak. I wish, therefore, to be slightly controversial in saying that I welcome the use of the word "abatement". I do not use the word "cut". I use the word "abatement" because it leads the Government into much greater difficulties. When information about the Bill leaked out and somehow arrived on the desk of Adam


Raphael at The Observer, Government sources originally claimed proudly that this would be a Bill of cuts. Obviously, there was some feed-back about the public reaction. Perhaps the Bill was not quite as popular as some people in government had thought. The word "abatement" was therefore introduced and this linked as a necessary first step to taxing benefits.
Following this approach to taxing benefits, there is now the absurd position, admitted by the Secretary of State, in which large numbers of people have their benefits abated or, as some of my hon. Friends would say, cut, when they would not have paid tax. They are therefore experiencing cuts in benefits which under an ordinary system of the taxation of all benefits they would not. If the policy is "abatement" and not "cuts", the Secretary of State will be able to give a clear undertaking tonight that, when taxation is introduced, the abatements will be made good. This has not been given on all benefits. The right hon. Gentleman has given a half commitment on benefits to the disabled.
If these are real cuts to help pay for tax cuts to the rich that I have already outlined, there would be no commitment to make good the shortfalls—the cuts and abatements—later. If, however, it is a genuine first move to taxing benefits, it will be no problem for the Secretary of State to give a commitment that when the Inland Revenue can tax benefits—in 1982–83 or whenever the date is—the cuts made this year and in succeeding years will be made good. If that commitment is not forthcoming, we shall be debating a twofold cut in benefits. There will be cuts this year, next year and the year after, under the abating formula. Those much reduced benefits in real terms will be cut still further when they are brought into the tax net. I hope that the Secretary of State is genuine when he uses the word "abatement" as the first step to taxing benefits. Some hon. Members will rest a little more easily in our beds if that is so. However, if, as I fear, many of the clauses are closely interwoven with the Budgets in which we have seen a record redistribution of income to the rich, the Secretary of State may have difficulty in giving us that commitment.
The Bill is a massively important measure. I support the amendment to leave out clause 1, because the Bill marks the end of post-war politics. The Government have seized the nettle—that any Government would have had to seize—in a wholly improper way, by reducing the living standards of those who are most vulnerable.
The Bill also demonstrates more clearly than any Labour Member has so far been able to demonstrate to his constituents that the problems of poverty are interwoven with the problems of riches in this country. One has only to consider clauses 1 and 4 and the Government's first two Budgets to see the truth of that statement.

6 pm

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, the debate has been in many ways a rehearsal of the arguments that we had at length in Committee. As so often, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a point of great pertinence and, as we have come to expect of him one of scrupulous honesty. The hon. Gentleman made the point that, whichever Government had been in office, they would have faced difficult agonising decisions about how to cope with the burden of public spending at a time when, at least for the moment, growth has come to an end.

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) does not speak for the Opposition on this matter.

Mr. Jenkin: No doubt the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. I have only a limited time available to me. I hope that hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will forgive me if I repeat on the Floor of the House something that I quoted at greater length in Committee in order to make the point that the dilemma that any Government would have faced is not confined to the United Kingdom, but is a problem facing other countries in a comparable position.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise that I have here the report "Social Security in a Changing World".

Mr. Race: Not that again.

Mr. Jenkin: I quoted it in Committee, and it is relevant. It is a survey of the social security position in four European countries, including the United Kingdom, conducted by a distinguished American civil servant, Mr. Standford G. Ross, the Commissioner for Social Security in Washington. The report sets out the background against which we have to consider the clause. Mr. Ross wrote:
 Optimistic forecasts during the 1960s and early 1970s, which made expansion of social security programmes seem possible and desirable, were dealt unforeseen blows by the oil crisis and the combination of recession and inflation. Now, limited growth is generally forecast and social security has to confront the issue of how to deal with scarce resources in the 1980s and beyond.
He went further:
To help alleviate the future tax burden, countries are clearly committed to avoiding to the maximum extent possible future social security improvements that add to costs.
He added:
 Benefit curtailments are expected to produce some marginal savings and most countries expect to develop these possibilities to some extent.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which other countries are actually cutting benefits? The American researcher said only that they were thinking about it.

Mr. Jenkin: I quoted a number of cases in Committee and, as time is limited, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Standing Committee Official Report. I referred to the Federal Republic of Germany, Holland, Italy and countries across the world including Canada and Australia. All those countries are, in one way or another, abating the uprating of benefits.
That is what the clause is about and what all those who have spoken in the debate have referred to. The clause is made up of a series of relatively small cuts. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) asked whether everything depended on 90p off the maternity benefit. Of course, we cannot single out just one benefit.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Why not?

Mr. Jenkin: We have to look at the combined effect of the clause. In the first full year, it will lead to savings of

£130 million. I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the overriding purpose of the first five clauses, and particularly of clause 1, is to save public spending. If it were not for that, I have little doubt that no Government would contemplate bringing forward such difficult, unpopular and unpalatable measures.
I was grateful that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam) recognised that no one takes such decisions with joy or anything approaching it. They are difficult decisions and we have no illusions about the dismay that they will cause among those who feel themselves affected. We have to take those decisions because, as I have said many times, the social security budget absorbs a large share of public expenditure.

Mr. Race: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the money from his rich friends?

Mr. Jenkin: The social security budget has grown rapidly in real terms over the past 10 years. Ten years ago, it absorbed 17 per cent. of public spending. In 1979–80, it absorbed 27 per cent. of public spending. There was no way in which the Government could hope to achieve their overall spending objectives if the social security budget did not make a contribution.
The benefits in the clause share one characteristic which does not apply to a number of other benefits. The five benefits in clause 1 abated by 5 per cent. are those for unemployment, sickness and injury and the maternity allowance and the invalidity benefit with the unemploy-ability supplement under the industrial injuries scheme. They are all income maintenance benefits and are intended to replace earnings. They all have the characteristic of not being subject to taxation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North stated firmly that it has been common ground for a number of years that, if the administrative obstacles could be overcome, those benefits should be treated as part of taxable income. I am grateful to have the support of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely for that view.
Not one of the representative bodies that I have met to discuss clause 1 has


argued against the principle of taxing those benefits. The benefits are not taxed and they ought to be.

Mr. Rooker: But the right hon. Gen-tieman is not proposing taxation.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course the Bill's provisions are not proper taxation. I recognise that. There will be some, though even with the invalidity benefit only a minority, who would probably not pay tax if it were applied at present levels and with present allowances. However, the overall yield from the clause is £130 million—less than one-third of what proper taxation on the benefits would yield. We estimate that to be of the order of £450 million in a full year based on the figures in the Red Book.

Mr. Ennals: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the number of people in the five categories who would not have to pay tax on their present earnings? How many people are due for a 5 per cent. abatement who would not have been liable to tax?

Mr. Jenkin: The answer in the case of the invalidity benefit—the argument is here at its strongest and I accept it—is that of about 850,000 invalidity beneficiaries 250,000 people would not be liable to tax and about 150,000 people would be liable to pay less tax than would be yielded by the 5 per cent. abatement. The point was made frequently in Committee and has been fully conceded by the Government that this is not as satisfactory a way of dealing with this matter as if proper taxation could be introduced straight away.

Mr. Race: Mr. Race rose——

Mr. Jenkin: No I cannot give way. I must finish and I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is waiting to speak. The benefits to which this section applies ought to be taxed and we cannot wait until 1982 or 1983 to secure the contribution from the social security budget towards the Government's overall spending objectives. I have been asked what I shall do when proper taxation applies. I have made it clear that, in relation to invalidity benefit to which hon. Members on both sides of the House—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter-addressed themselves, we have given the

undertaking, subject to availability of resources, to restore the invalidity benefit to the level which would have obtained without abatement.
That, since the benefit was introduced, has been equivalent to the retirement pension and I repeat that undertaking today. The reason why it is right to give that pledge on invalidity benefit is, as a number of my hon. Friends have made clear, that benefit is a long-term benefit. Since it was introduced more than 10 years ago invalidity benefit has, traditionally, maintained a parallel course with the level of the retirement pension. When it comes into taxation, subject to the availability of resources, we intend to restore that relationship.
The Government are not in a position, in relation to the other benefits covered by the clause, to give a comparable undertaking. I must make it clear that the decision will be faced at the time as to what would be the appropriate level of those benefits when they are brought into taxation. The House will know that we have published proposals for consultation in a Green Paper dealing with whether the first eight weeks of sickness benefit payment should be transferred to employers on the ground that about 80 per cent, of employees are currently covered by some form of sickness pay. The relationship between long-term and short-term benefits has not been a fixed one over a number of years and it was widening under our predecessors. It is a matter for judgment at the time, in relation to available resources, the general level of earnings, what the country can afford, the borrowing requirement and all the other factors as to what is the appropriate level when these benefits come into taxation. I can add to the pledge that I gave about invalidity benefit.
6.15 pm
The assurance that I have given about that benefit will also apply to the unem-ployability supplement which is the long-term incapacity equivalent of invalidity benefit under the industrial injuries scheme. That is also a long-term benefit. The same relationship applies and the same assurance, therefore, can be given, Concerning the short-term benefit it must be a matter for judgment when it comes into taxation in 1982 or 1983 whether we can restore the level of the benefit.
I noted carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said about any possible repetition, under the powers in this clause, of abating the invalidity benefit for a further year. I cannot give him the categorical assurance that he sought and I am sure that he understands that. But I have no doubt at all that his point of view is widely shared by those who have had the interests of the disabled at heart over many years. I believe that any Government would be bound to take careful note of that viewpoint and I can give my hon. Friend that assurance so far as it goes.
Many hon. Members referred to the disabled. I think that it is right to point out that the abatement is not applied to a number of the other benefits which are available to the disabled. The abatement does not apply to the attendance allowance, to the industrial disablement benefit—which will not be taxed—to the mobility allowance which, as the House knows, is taxed already and which has been increased by substantially more than the retail price index.
Compensation and extra expenses benefits are not to be abated. They are benefits paid on top of earnings rather than in place of earnings. Nor are we abating the increases paid for children. The non-contributory invalidity pension will not be included in the abatement because of its comparatively low rate, though we shall consider whether it should be regarded as a taxable benefit when taxation comes in. We do not intend to abate the invalid care allowance. As the House knows, that allowance is already taxed.
A large number of benefits are not covered by this clause. They are not to be abated. They will be increased by the full amount of 16£ per cent. or, in the case of the mobility allowance, by over 20 per cent.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I take the point about the non-contributory element but is there not an indirect impact upon this benefit as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill?

Mr. Jenkin: Not as far as I am aware, but if the hon. Member cares to write to me I will try to find out whether that is so. This clause does not affect the NCIP. The hon. Member for Eccles and

my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) referred to the maternity allowance and I understand the point that about 50,000 maternity allowance beneficiaries would have an annual income which would not exceed their personal allowances and would not be affected by taxation.
It is important to recognise that the basis of this estimate is the fact that the beneficiaries are women who become entitled to the maternity allowance early in the tax year who have no earnings before they become entitled to benefit. However, they would have had earnings in order to have built up a contributory record and thus become entitled to benefit. For perfectly good reasons which many of us would applaud they do not go back to work after they have had their babies. That means they have no earnings for the rest of the year.
Their maternity allowance would not fully absorb their personal tax allowance. But the overwhelming majority of them are married and are supported by their husbands. In those circumstances, bearing in mind that maternity allowance is a benefit which should be taxed and will, eventually, be taxed, it is perfectly proper that the abatement should apply to that benefit at this stage.
I fully share the objectives of those who want to see an improved maternity service in terms both of the Health Service and of income support. As the hon. Member for Eccles reminded me, he and I shared that platform in Trafalgar Square in aid of the "Save the Baby" campaign launched by the Spastics Society. As he knows, as anyone who served on the Select Committee knows, and as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North knows, I answered many questions on this subject recently. I hope that I left my commitment to that objective in no doubt whatever.
The level of benefits that the country can afford depends on its ability to generate the resources to pay for them. Until we have the economy generating the resources to pay for these benefits and to maintain the social security programme, there is an inescapable obligation on the Government—the hon. Member for Birkenhead hoped that a Labour Government would deal with it in some other way—to maintain public spending, which includes the social security programme, at


a level which can be sustained by the country's capacity to pay for it.

Mr. Field: Tax cuts.

Mr. Jenkin: Tax cuts are part of the philosophy and measures to restore incentive and to give encouragement to generate the wealth on which the Welfare State depends. The Welfare State cannot exist independently of the nation's ability to pay for it. It is because the previous Labour Government were unable to understand the link between those two matters that we find ourselves facing these difficult decisions today.
I ask the House to reject the amendment and to allow the clause to stand as an important and significant contribution to the savings that must be made as part of the Government's overall economic strategy.

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State has taken 22 minutes and not made out an argument why the clause should be kept in the Bill. He failed to do so in Committee and he has failed again, as have his hon. Friends.
It should be made clear at the outset that these are cuts. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that they are cuts. "Abatement" was the word that he used to hold the Government to account in two years, but these are cuts in benefits this year. There are cuts of £45 million in unemployment benefit, £30 million in sickness benefit, £5 million in the maternity allowance, £55 million in the invalidity benefit, and £5 million in injury benefit. That is a total of £140 million. That is in lieu of taxation. These benefits have been paid for. They are national insurance benefits, not supplementary benefits. They have been paid for by the contributions of people at work.
If the Government taxed them, they would get three times that amount—£420 million. That is the Secretary of State's argument. He has told us halfheartedly that it is unfortunate that some of those who will have the benefits abated or cut would not pay tax. We got out of him the fact that there are 400,000 on invalidity benefit. He did not mention unemployment benefit, but there are 200,000 on unemployment benefit and 50,000 on maternity allowance. For some

unknown reason, the number covered by sickness benefit is not available; neither is the number in receipt of injury benefit. These are substantial numbers who will be attacked. They would be better off if the benefits were taxed. This is the crazy position into which the Government have got themselves on this clause.
We are under the guillotine. The Government do not want to debate the Bill in the Chamber, just as they did not want to debate it upstairs. That is why they introduced the guillotine, and why debate has been curtailed. But the key question is: what will happen at the time when the benefits come into tax? In respect of this clause and others the Minister said "When resources permit, we shall do the necessary".
In Committee, at column 681, I asked the Secretary of State what was the benchmark that the House and the country had by which to judge his performance. What is the economic performance of the country going to be when the benefit is restored to its original value? In order that we may judge whether the Secretary of State was telling the truth today, I asked what he meant when he said "if proper resources are available" or "if resources permit".
The right hon. Gentleman said:
 However, the yield from proper taxation will be three times what will be saved by clause 1. One is perfectly capable of looking at the accounts as a whole, at both revenue and expenditure. I do not therefore anticipate any difficulty in meeting the obligation to restore the benefits and fulfilling the pledge that I have given. When the benefits come into tax, the revenue will be there."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 1980; c. 681.]
The Government will get three times that amount from tax. That is the yardstick by which we judge the Secretary of State. We judge him not only on invalidity benefit, but on all the other benefits, because on the day that they come into tax the Government will get £420 million. They will have enough money to restore the benefits to their original value. It is as well to put that on record.
The Government have produced the Bill in a rush. They have refused to meet pressure groups while the Bill has been in Committee. That is a fact. It has been admitted. The Bill has been introduced in a rush and bounced through the House. There are so many corrections coming to answers from the Department that it is


just not true. Some of us are receiving letters and corrected answers regarding legitimate inquiries that we made about the effects of the Bill—information that we needed to do our job in Committee. The information was denied to us.
I propose to give the House one example, because the Ministers have come clean today. I suppose that they could have left it until tomorrow. However, I give them credit for having done it today. On 21 April I asked the Secretary of State
 if benefits payable under the new pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit scheme are affected by any provision contained in the Social Security (No. 2) Bill; and, if so, if he will give details.'
The answer that I received from the Minister for Social Security was:
 They are not affected."—[Official Report, 21 April 1980; Vol. 983, c. 51–2.]
That is pretty clear-cut.
One would have assumed that before the Bill was brought before the House it would be possible to answer that question. It is a containable industrial injuries scheme; it is well codified; and all the people in benefit are known. Yet today I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he said:
In my reply of 21 April to your written question about the effect of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill on benefits payable under the … scheme, I said that the Bill had no effect on that scheme. I am afraid that that was wrong for the reasons given in the revised answer which I have sent to Hansard today and of which I enclose a copy.",
I should add that the copy was not enclosed.
 You may like to know that 26 people in all will be affected in this way.
The revised answer in Hansard stated that the Minister
 gave the following further information ".
The fact that he said they were not affected was not mentioned. The revised answer read:
 The provisions of the Bill do not affect personal benefits payable under this scheme, but increases of those benefits payable in respect of unemployability and for a dependant wife are affected because their equivalents under the Social Security Act are affected by clause 1 of the Bill.

Division No. 320]
AYES
[6.30 pm


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)


Adams, Allen
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Allaun, Frank
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

One of the central points that we have tried to raise is the way that the Government slipped in the fact that industrial injuries benefits were also under attack. That was not made abundantly clear when the Bill was published. Those sections of our work force in the mining industry will take it amiss of the Government if their benefits and pension entitlements are affected.

Following the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, it must be made abundantly clear that no Labour Government would have brought forward a Bill to cut national insurance benefits. Those of my hon. Friends who made this point should not pussyfoot about with a Government who are attacking the fundamental basis of the Welfare State. They are attacking not supplementary benefits, not the non-contributory part of the social security system, but the contributory part—the benefits that have been paid for under an insurance scheme. If any major insurance company tried to pull this rip-off on its clients, all hell would be let loose in this Chamber—and probably in the one down the corridor—about reneging on contractual obligations once the contributions had been paid and the benefits earned.

There is absolutely no way in which a Labour Government would have contemplated such a Bill, whatever the economic circumstances.

I hope that the Secretary of State will take that on board and not rely on what happens to be said by hon. Members on either side of the House in respect of what may or may not have happened in hypo thetical circumstances. Whatever the economic situation, there is no way that a Labour Government would have brought in such a Bills——

It being half-past Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 282.

Beith, A. J.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Neill, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Haynes, Frank
Park, George


Bradford, Rev. R.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Race, Reg


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton £ P)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Richardson, Jo


Campbell, Ian
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Canavan, Dennis
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Robertson, George


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright John
Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Sever, John


Concannon. Rt Hon J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheerman, Barry


Conland, Bernard
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Step and Pop)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs Renée


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James A.
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Soley, Clive


Davles, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Leighton, Ronald
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton £ Slough)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Douglas, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dubs, Alfred
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCusker, H.
Tilley, John


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Eastham, Ken
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKelvey, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David


Evans, loan (Abordare)
McNamara, Kevin
Weetch, Ken


Ewing, Harry
McWilliam, John
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Magee, Bryan
Welsh, Michael


Field, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury £ Radcliffe)


Fitch, Alan
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fitt, Gerard
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitlock, William


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wigley, Dafydd


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ford, Ben
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wlliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Freud, Clement
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Molyneaux, James
Woolmer, Kenneth


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wright, Sheila


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. James Hamilton and


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Altken, Jonathan
Aspinwall, Jack
Bell, Sir Ronald


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bendall, Vivian


Allson, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)







Best, Kelth
Grist, lan
Neubert, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nott, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Onslow, Cranley


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Body, Richard
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hastings, Stephen
Parris, Matthew


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heddle, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Brinton, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Perclval, Sir lan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brotherton, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Porter, George


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hooson, Tom
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Timothy


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Burden, F. A.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butcher, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Buller, Hon Adam
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kimball, Marcus
Rldsdale, Julian


Chalker. Mrs. Lynde
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Channon, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark. Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lang, lan
Rossi, Hugh


Clark. Sir William (Croydon South)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Cope, John
Lee, John
Scott, Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)
Shersby, Michael


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Dickens, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jame"
Lyel, Nicholas
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Dover, Denshore
McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Nell
Spence, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Durant, Tony
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, lain


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stalnton, Keith


Eggar, Timothy
McNalr-Wil30n, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, Sir William
McQuarrie, Albert
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John
Stevens, Martin


Farr, John
Marland, Paul
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Fell, Anthony
Marlow, Tony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Norman


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Thornton, Malcolm


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Moore, John
Viggers, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Waddington, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wakeham, John


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mudd, David
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Gray, Hamish
Murphy, Christopher
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Greenway, Harry
Myles, David
Waller, Gary


Grieve, Percy
Needham, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John







Warren, Kenneth
Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watson, John
Wilkinson, John



Wells, Bowen (Her-.'rd & Stev'nage)
Williams, Oelwyn (Montgomery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wheeler, John
Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wickenden, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Divisions take place at this time of day, when traffic is heavy, could a greater latitude be allowed in respect of the time allowed for a Division? Could instructions be given to the police to ensure that a policeman is on duty to enable hon. Members coming from Dean's Yard to cross the road? Hon. Members with offices there face a serious hazard when coming to the House for a Division.

Mr. Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point I shall of course see that the necessary instructions are given. A day when a timetable motion comes into effect is more straightforward than most other days because hon. Members know when a Division will take place. They should make provision accordingly.

Clause 3

ALTERATION OF PERIOD OF INTERRUPTION OF EMPLOYMENT AND OF PERIODS RELATING TO INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE AND UNEMPLOYABILITY SUPPLEMENT.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 27, leave out clause 3.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 12, in page 3, line 43, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 6.
No. 14, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
' (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provision amended by subsection (1) or (3) of this section to have effect as if for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to a larger number of weeks specified in the regulations.'
No. 24, in page 4, line 23, at end insert—
' (4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where recurrent incapacity for work arises

from the medical conditions listed in subsection (2) of this section, two resulting periods of interruption of employment not separated by a period of more than 13 weeks ("week" for this purpose meaning any period of seven days) shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment.
(5) The medical conditions referred to in subsection (4) above are:—


(a) multiple sclerosis and other demyelin-ating dieases;
(b) motor neurone disease;
(c) neuropathies;
(d) stroke and other cerebro-vascular diseases;
(c) epilepsy and other seizure disorders;
(f) Parkinson's Disease;
(g) chronic schizophrenia, affective ill-nessess and other recurring mental disorders;
(h) ischemic and valvular heart diseases, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease and heart conduction disorders;
(i) cirrhosis of the liver and other hepatic disease;
(j) chronic pancretitis and other chronic pancreatic diseases:
(k) ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease and other chronic gastro-intestinal diseases;
(l) tuberculosis;
(m) chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases of the lung;
(n) psoriasis, dermatitis and other chronic skin dieases;
(o) chronic leukaemias and other chronic haematological disorders;
(p) neoplastic disorders of the respiratory tract, gastro-intestinal system, breast, prostate, skin, brain and other sites;
(q) diabetes mellitus myxoedema and other chronic endocrine disorders;
(r) rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and other chronic rheumatological diseases;
(s) chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome and other chronic renal diseases;
(t) chronic disease of ovarian and uterine functions; and
(u)recurrent disability due to previous physical injury.


(6) The Secretary of State may by order add further conditions to those specified in sub section (5) of this section.".

Mr. Morris: The cuts we are debating today are the unkindest cuts of all; for any cut in benefits for disabled people can reduce not only their standard of living but even their freedom to live independent lives. The disabled person who is denied adequate help can quickly be put at risk. While others suffer annoyance, inconvenience and some hardship as a result of lower public spending, the disabled person may suffer the


much harsher penalty of becoming a prisoner in his own home.
Conservative Ministers make no bones about the low priority they give to disabled people compared with some other groups. Take their higher-than-average cut in planned expenditure on the personal social services. That blow was aimed directly at disabled people who are struggling to stay independent in their own homes.
Even worse is the Government's decision to cut the value of the invalidity benefit paid to people who have been unable to work for more than six months due to sickness or disability. This is a cut which the Disablement Income Group, in a protest of extreme bitterness, has denounced to the present Minister with responsibility for the disabled as not only "appalling" but "cruelly unfair". The chairman of the conference that the Minister addressed today used those words. Today's conference, which I myself opened this morning, was organised by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR). That highly respected organisation has itself said:
 Ministers continually repeat their concern for severely disabled people, but their actions are condemning them to increasing isolation and dependence.
That is a grave but well justified charge against the Government.
The Disablement Income Group and RADAR are not the only organisations which have expressed their anger at current policies. The Disability Alliance described the Bill as
… a most savage assault on the living standards of disabled people.
In a striking phrase, the Disability Alliance said that the Government had come to office with an impressive record of promises to chronically sick and disabled people. In this debate we are comparing promise with performance. The organisations of and for disabled people very naturally feel very strongly about the Bill's provisions and are saying so.
With ridiculous optimism the Government forecast that prices will rise by 16½ per cent. in the 12 months up to November. On that basis, they are increasing retirement pensions and supplementary benefits by 16½ per cent. from November. In the past, invalidity benefit has been increased in step with these other

benefits. Now the law is to be changed. From November, in order to save £50 million in a full year, people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit will receive 5 per cent. less than retirement and supplementary pensioners and, even on the Government's forecast, the same amount less than price increases. This means that for the single person the real value of the invalidity benefit, assuming a 16½ per cent. rate of inflation, will drop by £1–15 a week. For the married couple the Government's decision means a drop in benefit of £1·85 a week and £96·20 in a full year.
That is the decision of a Government who. in their first year of office, crammed over £1,500 million into the pockets of the richest 7 per cent. of taxpayers. It is hard to understand why even this Government should want to discriminate so brutally against people whose working lives have been cut short by sickness and disability. In their election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to concentrate help on the sick and the disabled and on others in greatest need. Now they are going out of their way to cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who, in addition to being poor, have little prospect of returning to work.
The only defence of their policy the Government have attempted is that ultimately invalidity benefit will be taxed, and that the cut in its value is a short-term measure until this happens. They claim that, when the benefit is taxed, subject to the availability of resources, it will return to what it would have been had it stayed in step with the retirement pension. That defence angers the national organisations of and for the disabled almost as much as the policy itself. Invalidity benefit cannot be taxed until after 1982. Again very large numbers of people now receiving that benefit do not pay tax.
Indeed, in a parliamentary answer on 15 April the Minister said that there could be as many as 400,000 invalidity pensioners below the tax threshold. Many of the poorest 400,000 will die in the short term. Yet from November their incomes will be cut by at least 5 per cent. If inflation exceeds the Government's forecasts—as most people think it will—the cut will be even worse. The inflation rate may be as high as 19 per cent. or 20 per cent.


If that happens, many of the poorest chronically sick and disabled people may suffer a cut of no less than 8 per cent, in their standard of living.
The Prime Minister said of the Budget that it
… protects the weak and is fair to all.
Unless that was pure cynicism, she could not have known of its implications for invalidity pensioners. Let her listen, therefore, to someone who lives not far from her constituency:
 My husband is 44 and disabled by Multiple Sclerosis. He is a very sick man and yet his invalidity benefit is to be cut by at least 5 per cent. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher knows, or understands, the burden of an incurable illness on a poor family. If she does, why add to our punishment? 
Now that the Prime Minister knows more about the effects of the Budget on such families, she should at least end the cruel farce of allowing her Ministers to talk of a "caring Government" while singling out the weakest and poorest for an attack which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), using considerable restraint, called "shabby and shoddy". He said that the Government are taking on the weak in our society because they feel that they can win. The Government should, however, be warned that there are those, notably my right hon. Friend among others in the House today, who will fight to defend what we have worked for over the years.
In my five years as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the Labour Government increased their cash help for the chronically sick and disabled from £474 million to £1,574 million. Our year-by-year increases in expenditure on benefits paid to the chronically sick and disabled were set out in a recent parliamentary answer from the Minister as follows:
 1973–74, £474 million; 1974–75, £626 million; 1975–76, £871 million; 1976–77, £1,087 million; 1977–78, £1,330 million; 1978–79, £1,574 million."—[Official Report, 3 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 405.]
The increase of £1,100 million over five years does not include the considerable extra cost of pensions for elderly disabled people which resulted from the link that we forged between pensions and average industrial earnings in our Social Security Act 1975.
Ministers have been more successful in providing statistics about the policies of the previous Labour Administration than they have been about providing important statistics connected with the Bill.
I want to refer now to what I regard as an important House of Commons matter. I tabled two questions for priority written answer, which should have been answered on 24 April. The Minister of State, Treasury ultimately replied on 12 May. His reply, in parts, contradicted replies that I had received from the Department of Health and Social Security. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that a delay of that order on a matter of such importance is quite unacceptable to the House.
I also tabled five questions to the Secretary of State for Employment for answer on 20 May. They were about the effects of clause 3 of this Bill. I asked
 what consideration he has given to the effect on attendance at employment rehabilitation centres of clause 3 of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement.
He replied:
 I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 20 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 118.]
The substantive reply will now arrive after the debate. I regard that as an insult to the House. We need information to ensure that our debates are well informed. It strikes me that the Government are stretching the rules that apply to parliamentary questions almost beyond breaking point.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is replying to the debate, since she herself made it clear in Committee that a parliamentary question that I tabled for reply on 14 April was not really answered at all. The hon. Lady also gave the impression that she had only a hazy idea about what the figures referred to in the answer referred to. She was forced to admit that the question was not answered exactly as it was posed. That was the hon. Lady's way of saying that the answer was grossly unsatisfactory and did not fit the question. To apply a guillotine when we are denied proper information on this scale is, in my view, the definition of a parliamentary scandal.
The Government are not only cutting invalidity pensions directly but are making it more difficult for people to become entitled to that pension, and also easier for them to lose it if they attempt to


return to work but are unsuccessful in doing so. That is what clause 3 of the Bill is about. It is a serious blow to the disabled, especially those trying to reestablish themselves at work.
Let us consider briefly the effect of the clause on the disabled who want to work. The reduction from 13 weeks to six weeks threatens those who suffer from intermittent illnesses and who are prone to relapse—an example is multiple sclerosis. Many such people are young and anxious to work. For them it becomes a matter of pride to carry on. The Government are aiming a blow at both their pockets and their pride. Their morale will suffer. A reduction in their incentive to work is directly contrary to the intention to tackle the "Why work?" syndrome, in which the Prime Minister takes so passionate an interest. These are the very people who reject the syndrome and whose courage in the face of disability is a rebuke to the able-bodied.
The Government are performing a policy of social Darwinism by putting a higher value on some people, the strong and fortunate, than on others. The disincentive effect of clause 3 is obvious, as the organisations for the disabled have pointed out. Recipients of invalidity benefit will be more reluctant to attempt to return to work for fear of jeopardising their income if their attempts prove a failure. The overall effects of the changes will be two-fold. First, there will be a loss of income for those who fall sick, especially those with periodic or fluctuating ailments, and secondly, there will be reduced incentives to return to work both for the short-term and the long-term sick and for the disabled.
The Government argue that their pro-proposals will affect only a minority. That is an especially shoddy argument. They ignore the fact that, however small the minority, they cannot legitimise policies of discrimination and injustice. The Government find it difficult to visualise the effect on individuals and on families, probably because so few of them have experienced life on the margins of poverty.
We are concerned here not only with amendment No. 11 but with other amendments and not least amendment No. 24. In Committee my right hop. and hon. Friends moved an amendment

to reduce the period from 13 weeks to eight weeks. That was rejected. Are the Government now prepared to respond to that amendment in a way they refused to do in Committee?
7 pm
In turning briefly to amendment No. 24, which seeks to remove the effect of the clause from those who are intermittently unable to work, I must strongly emphasise its importance. It seeks to exempt those who suffer from multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases, and people who suffer from epilepsy and other seizure disorders. It seeks to exclude from the provisions of clause 3 those who suffer from Parkinson's disease, from ulcerative colitis. Crohn's disease and other chronic gastrointestinal diseases. It seeks to protect those who suffer from chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cystic fibrosis and other chronic diseases of the lung. It seeks to help chronic leukemias and other chronic haematological disorders. It is an amendment that could be of assistance to people suffering from diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and other chronic rheumatological diseases. It also applies to those who suffer from chronic renal failure, nephrotic syndrome and other chronic renal diseases.
I hope that the hon. Lady will look with some favour on the amendment. Humanity requires that there should be some response from the Government to the arguments that have been advanced in Committee and on Report today. I have great pleasure in moving amendment No. 11. The House may be assured that my right hon. and hon. Friends will, if necessary, vote for it enthusiastically in the Lobbies tonight.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak on the amendment and only a short time remains.

Mr. Hannam: I take due note of that indication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief, because of the shortage of time. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 12 to 15, which appear on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). By means of the amendments


I am suggesting that rather than reduce the linking period from 13 weeks to six weeks, as proposed by the Government in the Bill, the Government should reduce it from three months to two months—in other words, to eight weeks.
I have read the debates in Committee carefully. I found it impossible to find any real evidence that a certain linking period is the right one. It seems that 13 weeks was introduced in 1948, with no real evidence to support it. There was no challenge at that time, and there was no challenge subsequently, on whether that was the correct period. There has been no effective monitoring of the effect of the linking period. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate some of the fears that we have all expressed in Committee and in private discussions about the effect of the proposed change in the linking period.
The Department confesses that it does not have an effective monitoring system. I feel that the reduction to six weeks is too draconian. I urge the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends to support my compromise proposal.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where there is remission, as with multiple sclerosis, 13 weeks is better than six weeks—I agree that his proposal of eight weeks is better—and that 13 weeks is totally inadequate for a progressive illness?

Mr. Hannam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that account must be taken of cases on the margin, wherever the line it; drawn. No one really knows what is the correct linkage period. No one knows when the deterrent will take effect. I am merely trying to achieve what I hope will be an improvement on the Government's present intention and to move towards the position that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has adopted. The problem of the marginal case will exist wherever the line is drawn.
I feel strongly that there is rather too much hit or miss about the reduction to six weeks from the original 13 weeks. That is why I tabled the amendment. We have grave fears that those who are receiving incapacity benefit and who are trying desperately hard to return to work will feel that the risk is too great and

that they may lose their benefit or entitlement to a higher rate of invalidity allowance. The various disability groups, including RADAR, Disability Alliance, and the Disablement Income Group, have presented to hon. Members, to those who served in Committee and to Ministers some excellent evidence on the various dangers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who always shows a deep concern in these matters, will take their arguments to heart and will consider them carefully.
Whatever happens to my amendments and to the Opposition amendments, I hope that my hon. Friend will institute proper monitoring procedures so that we may be sure what is happening rather than having to rely on hazy charges and counter-charges from different bodies.
I accept the figures that my hon. Friend gave in Committee. I accept that most of those claiming incapacity benefit will not be adversely affected by the reduction. However, we are not concerned necessarily with the majority. We are dealing with the disabled and the handicapped, however small the minority. I am concerned that those who may be small in number will be harmed and that some, after long illnesses, will be deterred from endeavouring to seek work. I am concerned that those suffering from diseases that allow periods of remission should be allowed to obtain morale-boosting employment.
I support the Government's overall objective of bringing public expenditure under control. However, I must state my determination to defend the rights of the disabled and the sick to overcome their difficulties in life. The minimum linking period that the House should insist upon is one of two months, which I have specified in my amendments. I implore my hon. Friend and the Government to accept amendments Nos. 12 and 14, along with the other amendments. Having studied the clause, I realise that the regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to increase the linking period in future applies only to subsection (1). I shall vote for my amendments if I am given the opportunity to do so. I emphasise that priority must be given to a proper monitoring system.
In the earlier debate on clause 1 we heard of the difficulties of obtaining


factual detail on the effect of legislation. I re-emphasise the need for a more effective system of monitoring. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that issue when she replies. I ask the Government to accept amendments Nos. 12 to 15. They are offered as a genuine attempt to provide the right answer to this difficult problem. We want the handicapped to work if they can. We want them to be encouraged to work and not to face the deterrents that the reduction to six weeks would introduce. I do not think that the amendments will break the Treasury bank, and I press them upon the Government.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise briefly to support the amendments. The Bill has many rough edges. That is not a description that has been offered by the Opposition but one repeatedly adopted by the Minister. It was said so often that the Government were not doing what they intended or wanted to do and that they were having to do something else. If on looking out of the window they see that the hedge needs trimming, instead of cutting the hedge they go out and cut the flowers. The clause illustrates that approach more than anything else. To make a net saving of £20 million in 1981–82, the Government are cutting the benefits to the sick by £50 million, giving back £30 million to the unemployed, and producing the net figure of £20 million. It is clear that they do not know the effect of the linkage period of 13 weeks.
We know that the Secretary of State is pretty good at doing things by stealth but to have introduced this clause with no real knowledge of its implications is totally wrong. It can be argued that other clauses involve large sums of money and that the Government cannot wait, but in this clause we are talking in terms of £10 million this year and £20 million next year. Therefore, there is a strong argument for the Government to delay the introduction of this measure until they can carry out effective monitoring and can consider the implication of the change from 13 weeks to six weeks. They would not lose very much money. They should consider the effect on the unemployed, the sick, and particularly people with recurrent illnesses who may suffer. I hope that the Government will accept amendments Nos. 12 to 15, which propose a period of eight weeks rather than six weeks, although

it is difficult to argue that a period of eight weeks is more satisfactory than any other period.

Amendment No. 24 recognises the problem of people with recurrent illnesses who at present have the benefit of a 13 week linkage and who would suffer if that period were to be reduced to six weeks. I hope that the Government can make some concessions in this area.

I understand that the Government have given assurances to people who have been lobbying on this issue that they will carefully research and monitor the position. But the Government should first get their information right, and then propose changes. They should not propose changes the implications of which they do not know. Life is getting more and more difficult for people who are unemployed, or who are in and out of jobs or in poor health. Because of the rising levels of unemployment, it is particularly difficult for people with recurring illnesses to find work.

I hope that the Government will accept all the amendments in this group, or at least make some concessions.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If there is any alteration in the linkage period, I should like it to be open-ended. In terms of rehabilitation it would be in the best interests of a disabled person, and it would assist the medical profession. The medical profession would be able to carry out a total programme of rehabilitation without the fear of patients worrying about the financial aspect. If the monitoring is not to take place on that basis, I hope that all the amendements are accepted.

Mr. Ashley: A short while ago I attended a meeting at which a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security was present. I was told that when public expenditure is cut someone must bear the hardship. I did not realise the significance of that message until I read this Bill. The disabled are suffering as a consequence of these decisions.
Both the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) have made the point that the Government do not know the true effect of linkage. The Government are operating in the


dark. In a sense, they are blindfolded. Yet they are instituting changes that will impose a real hardship on disabled people. These changes will affect people who wish to work spasmodically—those who cannot work regularly. These people are particularly vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will think again on this matter because, by deterring disabled people who are anxious to work, the Government are defying the logic of their basic economic policy, which is supposed to be incentives. I urge the Minister to try to meet some of the proposals which have been made and to have second thoughts on the important problem of linkage.

Miss Jo Richardson: I should like to add a few words to what has already been said on this matter. Although, in some respects, this is a narrow point, it affects people in society—whether a large or small number—who are least able to bear this sort of treatment. This is a mean clause. It is mean to people who are less well off. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to accepting these amendments, particularly as some Conservative Members also support them.
In Committee, the Minister said that this measure would not affect many people, and various hon. Members have, said that the numbers have not been quantified. But even if it affects only a tiny handful of people—it will affect more than that—we should think again. No matter what the number, people are suffering—and the disabled are suffering. The Government expect some saving from this clause. A figure of £10 million in the first year and £20 million in the second year has been mentioned. That is not good enough. If they cannot give way on any other issue, the Government could easily give way on this, think again and accept the amendments.
There is no doubt that there are difficulties for people who are trying to get back to work after chronic sickness or disabilities or if they have, been wounded, not only because of their disabilities, but because of loss of confidence. The thought that they will have to stick a job from day to day, week to week because they will be disadvantaged by this clause will discourage people from going

back to work. People cannot win under this clause in the way in which it is at present drafted. There is a likelihood that long-term sufferers will never receive invalidity benefit. On the other hand, it increases the likelihood of people who receive invalidity benefits continuing to apply for invalidity benefits. This clause hits out at people who can least afford it. I hope that the Minister will take into account the strong feeling on both sides of the House, and that she will consider the, matter again.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): In responding to this debate, I must say that I am glad that we have discussed clause 3, albeit for far too short a time. I was a little sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester Wythen-shawe (Mr. Morris) spent the first 10 minutes talking about clause 1. However, never mind; we are on clause 3, which concerns linking.
I must point out that we did not debate in Standing Committee an amendment to change the linking period from 13 weeks to eight weeks rather than six weeks. Certainly we did not discuss the eight-week period specifically in Committee at all.
It was very clear in Committee, as the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) have said, that we cannot be certain, because there has never been a degree of statistics collected about 13-week linking periods since 1948, of whether 13 weeks was right, or whether 10 weeks would be right, or six weeks, eight weeks, or however many weeks.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Or open-ended.

Mrs. Chalker: Or open-ended, as the hon. Gentleman says.
The point about this clause, which the Opposition are seeking to delete from the Bill, is that it does two things. Not only does it, in its original form, mean that two periods of interruption of employment will be separated by six weeks rather than 13 weeks from a former linking period, but it also changes the period of interruption of employment due to incapacity from any two days in a period of six consecutive days to four or more consecutive days. Our debate has been mainly on the former of those two things. I shall


concentrate my remarks, as I think the House would wish, on that.
The reduction in the linking period will certainly mean that fewer claims will link to a previous claim. That has several different effects. More waiting days would be served. Some people who have remained on invalidity benefit through widely spaced incapacities will instead receive sickness benefit. For the unemployed, some people will more easily avoid exhaustion of their 312-day entitlement to benefit.
To put matters in perspective, at present, 64 per cent, of all spells of incapacity do not link at all. The remaining 36 per cent, link within 13 weeks. It is estimated that 31 per cent, will still link under the proposed six-week rule. So we are talking about 5 per cent. of those spells which now link but which would not do so under the changes in clause 3, as it stands, at eight weeks.
Obviously, hon. Members are naturally concerned, both inside and outside the House, about the possible effects. I think that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was absolutely right when he said that there could be no one linking period which suited every person who may have recourse to invalidity benefit or any one person who, from time to time, has periods of sickness. As I have said, there is no magic about any of the numbers of weeks in the Bill. It is a matter of judgment. But the purpose of linking on incapacity benefits is twofold. First, it is to decide whether waiting days should be served, and secondly, to determine whether the conditions of invalidity benefit are being satisfied or remain satisfied. It is that last criterion about which there has been so much concern.
At present, if a person returns to work after a spell on invalidity benefit and falls sick again within 13 weeks, he remains on that benefit. Under clause 3, it would be six weeks. Any claims which do not link will become sickness benefit claims, and the 168 days entitlement to invalidity benefit would need to be served before the higher rate of IVB would be paid again.
We need to put that in perspective, too. The majority of invalidity beneficiaries are permanently sick and have no prospect of returning to work. For the

remainder, the medical view is that any linking period is inevitably arbitrary. There are wide variations in the length of time back at work. We regarded six weeks as a reasonable time. Figures show that for 84 per cent. of the cases that now link, the gap is less than six weeks. But we have specifically taken regulation-making powers to increase the specified period because there may be an effect which cannot be foreseen. I accept all the comments that hon. Members have made. If it were to prove a problem, that regulatory power could be used.
What the change will do is to obviate a situation which arises and which was never intended when invalidity benefit was first envisaged. I do not think that it is a serious problem, but it needs to be mentioned. Because we have had a 13-week linking rule, some people with a series of relatively minor and unrelated ailments are able to receive a long-term benefit intended for the chronic sick and disabled.

Mr. Field: How does the hon. Lady know, if the Department does not monitor?

Mrs. Chalker: That is an unwarranted side effect of linking, which the provision in the clause would largely eliminate.

Mr. Field: If the Department does not monitor how can the hon. Lady possibly know?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member knows full well that there is some monitoring, but the monitoring which has existed up to date, and under his Government, is not adequate for the purposes about which the House is now asking questions. That is why I assured the Standing Committee, and I reassure the House once more, that that monitoring will increase.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Basically, what is intended to happen is that where disabled people have to remain at home, the advent of technology will enable them to work within their homes, and that they can get invalidity benefit which will assist them with the extra costs of disability.

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment. The very fact that there is a regulatory power in the


Bill will enable it to be changed it mat should prove necessary. That may well be necessary with increasing technology, which will help disabled people to do some work in their homes which they cannot do now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has explained that 13 weeks is not a magic figure. He also went back through the history of how it came about. We accept that, for people going back to work after a long illness, two months is a reasonable time to re-establish themselves in employment—probably more so than six weeks. I also appreciate that the extension to eight weeks would help to some extent the chronic sick, who are able to work intermittently.
The length of time that we choose is a matter of judgment, but we have been very much impressed by the arguments from expert voluntary bodies. A change from six weeks to eight weeks, which is what is being proposed, would obviously increase invalidity benefit expenditure. That is something with which the House would not disagree. Therefore, it if it can be so arranged, I shall be seeking to accept the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—Nos. 12 to 15—to make sure that the linking period is brought from 13 weeks to eight weeks. I hope that the House will feel that common sense is therefore prevailing on this issue.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Chalker: In my last three minutes I should like to deal with amendment No. 24.

Mr. Bennett: It is on that point.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) had a word to say——

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I must answer what was said on amendment No. 24.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Bennett rose——

Mrs. Chalker: At present, I can well see the attraction of amendment No. 24.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Bennett rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not giving way. No point of order arises.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I wanted to raise was the question of whether the Minister would be in a position to move those amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order arising from what the Minister is doing.

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I sought the advice of the Chair earlier in the day to make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter could have his amendments moved by me, if not by him personally.
Finally, amendment No. 24 is interesting, but it would bring a great complication into our whole adjudication system for incapacity benefits. It was presumably the intention of the amendment that the first spell of incapacity should be due to one of the conditions specified in the amendment. That alone would cause difficulties in adjudication because, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe knows, no specific incapacity is named. It is simply the first spell of incapacity which starts off the entitlement. It is not clear from that amendment whether a second period would have to be due to the same medical condition as the first, or a subsequent period, and that would provide even further scope for major adjudication problems. I could go into this issue in more detail. However, in view of the time, I shall not. I under stand why amendment No. 24 was tabled. Many more disorders could have been added to the list. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. The job of our insurance officers would become virtually impossible. It would be very misleading if we were to have six or eight-week——

It being half-past Seven o'clock Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 321]
AYES
7.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Freud, Crement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Adams, Allen
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Alton, David
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
O'Neill, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John (Islington C)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Haynes, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewlsham West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Race, Reg


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Homewood, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robertson, George


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Howells, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Buchan, Norman
Hudson, Davies. Gwilym Ednyfed
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ryman, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sandelson, Neville


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Hon Greville
Sever, John


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheerman, Barry


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs Renée


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Cartwright, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Soley, Clive


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Conland, Bernard
Kilfedder, James A.
Staliard, A. W.


Cook, Robin F.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cowans, Harry
Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cryer, Bob
Lamble, David
Stoddart, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamborn, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbltter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davidson, Arthur
Leighton, Ronald
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Davles, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Deakins, Eric
Lotthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dobson, Frank
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Douglas, Dick
McElhone, Frank
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Weetch, Ken


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wellbeloved, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin
Whirlock, William


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Magee, Bryan
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettle'n)
Wlliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Faulds, Andrew
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Field, Frank
Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Fitch, Alan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woodall, Alec


Fitt, Gerard
Meacher, Michael
Woolmer, Kenneth


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wright, Sheila


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)



Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George
Mr. Joseph Dean.

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 278.

NOES


Adley, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Altken, Jonathan
Fox, Marcus
Miscampbell, Norman


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Allson, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moate, Roger


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector


Ancram, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus


Arnold, Tom
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Moore, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morgan, Geraint


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian
Mudd, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond
Murphy, Christopher


Bell, Sir Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Myles, David


Bendall, Vivian
Gray, Hamish
Needham, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Tony


Best, Kelth
Grist, Ian
Nott, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


BIHen, Rt Hon John
Gummer, John Selwyn
Osborn, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Blackburn, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Blaker, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Body, Richard
Hannam, John
Parris, Matthew


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hastings, Stephen
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pattle, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heddle, John
Percival, Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Henderson, Barry
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, George


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brooke, Hon Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brotherton, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hooson, Tom
Raison, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Butcher, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridsdale, Julian


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
RIppon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chalker. Mrs. Lynda
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Channon; Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sulton)
Lang, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cope, John
Lee, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cormack, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Sims, Roger


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Luce, Richard
Speller, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Nicholas
Spence, John


Dover, Denshore
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John
Sproat, lain


Durant, Tony
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stainton, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony


Eggar, Timothy
McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Major, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marland, Paul
Stokes, John


Farr, John
Marlow, Tony
Stradllng Thomas, J.


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Thornton, Malcolm







Townend, John (Bridlington)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Waller, Gary
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Walters, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David
Watson, John



Wakeham, John
Wheeler, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waldegrave, Hon William
Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Wickenden, Keith
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 3, line 43, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 6.
No. 14, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' 6 ' and insert ' 8 '.
No. 15, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
' (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provision amended by subsection (1) or (3) of this section to have effect as if for the reference to 8 weeks there were substituted a reference to a larger number of weeks specified in the regulations'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 4

REDUCTION AND ABOLITION OF EARNINGS RELATED SUPPLEMENT AND ADDITION

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 24, leave out Clause 4.
Some of my hon. Friends hope to speak to amendment No. 17 as well, which deletes clause 5. If it is convenient to the House I shall move amendment No. 16 and discuss with it amendment No. 17: page 4, line 37, leave out clause 5.

Amendment No. 16 deals with clause 4 which is entitled "Reduction and abolition of earnings-related supplement and addition." This is not an abatement or an adjustment—it is the abolition of a national insurance benefit. The long title of the Bill abolishes certain benefits. We have been trying to encourage the media to pay attention to the abolition of benefits in the Bill, but so far we have not succeeded. We are discussing here the total abolition of a benefit, and cuts in national insurance benefits which amount to £562 million—£360 million of which will result from clause 4 in a full year.

The clause means the total abolition of the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, injury benefit, maternity allowance and widows' allowance—five national insurance benefits, all of which attract earnings-related supplement provided that the contribution condition is met.

The Government are abolishing this benefit willy-nilly without any manifesto commitment to do so. They claim that they will save £360 million, but the net saving is nearer £285 million because £75 million will be used to pay supplementary benefit. By abolishing this benefit, the Government will push several thousand people on to means-tested benefits and they will have to spend £75 million extra on supplementary benefits. That goes against the grain for this Government. Those on supplementary benefits have been at the butt end of some of the attacks made by the Minister of State and now the Government are about to increase the numbers of people who will be on the receiving end of his remarks.

Two of these benefits—the maternity allowance and the widows' allowance—are unique in that they apply to women only. The Government will cut £50 million by abolishing the earnings-related supplement for those women who are in receipt of the maternity allowance and the widows' allowance. Both these benefits have actually been paid for by national insurance contributions. In fact, contributions are being made this year and when those people come to collect their benefits in 1982 they will find that they have been abolished. The Secretary of State will no doubt say that this is a "pay as you go" system, and that the contribution year is not really linked to the time the person has to claim. But that will not wash with those people who suddenly discover that they have paid their national insurance contribution in 1980–81 but cannot collect the earnings-related supplement in 1982. They have


been short-changed and robbed by this Government.

So far I have not received a single representation from any widows' organisation in the country about the Government taking £15 million from widows. I cannot believe that these organisations would have been silent if a Labour Government had made such a proposal. When we were in office, they kicked at the doors of Ministers claiming that we were not doing enough for them. Now £15 million is being taken deliberately from the widows. Among those widows are women whose husbands were killed at work. That is where the earnings-related supplement comes into play. That the Government should have come forward with such a proposal belies belief. The Secretary of State must be pretty ashamed of this clause.

We spent a long time in Committee discussing what the Secretary of State said in his statement on 27 March. We all have copies of Hansard and we can look at what he said. What I am about to say casts no reflection on the Hansard reporters because the Secretary of State did not utter the words that I am about to put into his mouth from the Dispatch Box. In the brief that I received from the Child Poverty Action Group there was a quotation attributed to the Secretary of State on 27 March referring to the abolition of earnings-related supplement. He said:
 Nevertheless earnings-related supplement does add to income out of work, and therefore, at the margin, does not encourage the return to work.
I could not find any speech that the right hon. Gentleman made that day apart from a press conference and his speech in this House. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say those words, although at one time I believed that I had. We discovered in Committee that that sentence was in the right hon. Gentleman's draft statement. He told us that at length in Committee. One of my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that the sentence was in the press notice. The right hon. Gentleman agreed but pointed out that the press notice had written on it "Check against delivery".

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The matter was raised in Committee, but I did not say
that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that phrase did not appear on the statement given to the press. However, that does not alter the fact that the previous words that the hon. Gentleman quoted were never said by me.

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State made the point in Committee that press releases usually contain that caveat. That is normal on press releases. One of my hon. Friends had the original DHSS press release in Committee. It was not a photocopy. The caveat was not on that.
The Secretary of State made it clear that he had chosen not to say those words. By implication it was clear that he was frightened to say those words in this Chamber. They imply that the removal of earnings-related supplement would drive the sick and disabled back to work when they are not fit.
I accept that the Secretary of State did not say those words for the reasons he gave. He told us that we must judge only what he said to the House. However, I picked up a copy of his statement from the Vote Office on 27 March. That sentence appears in it. I checked again today. If an hon. Member asks in the Vote Office for a copy of the statement that the Secretary of State made on 27 March with regard to the November 1980 uprating, he will be given the statement containing that sentence. That sentence does not appear in Hansard, but it is in the statement that the Secretary of State had in front of him that day. We should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman omitted those words.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose ——

Mr. Rooker: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

Mr. Jenkin: Mr. Jenkin rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Rooker: No. The guillotine was imposed by the Government to curtail our debate. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Jenkin: This is a debate in the House of Commons.

Mr. Rooker: The House of Commons is here to enable hon. Members to debate.
The statement containing that sentence is still in the Vote Office. I expect the Secretary of State will have an explanation, which he can make in his own speech. I have had enough of the right hon. Gentleman's claptrap. The Government have curtailed the debate. We are under a severe guillotine.
The Secretary of State did not have the courage to utter those words, but in that sentence he or onez of his advisers was implying that the sick or disabled in receipt of earnings-related supplement could be encouraged to return to work before they were fit and able by removing the benefit. That is scandalous. It is a fundamental attack on the Welfare State. The Secretary of State should hang his head in shame over clause 4. The Government have no mandate for it.
People have not yet become aware of the robbery contained in the clause. In the tax year that we have just started people are paying national insurance contributions that include entitlement to earnings-related supplement from January 1982. In 1982 the sick, disabled and widows whose husbands are killed at work and who are entitled to earnings-related supplement will find that the benefit has been abolished. Conservative Members have said in Committee that people should not be encouraged to believe that national insurance is a proper insurance scheme. They said that they must rid people of the illusion that they are entitled to benefit if they have paid their contribution. They were supported in that by the Minister.
Under clause 1, benefits will not be raised in line with inflation, or uprated. They will be cut. This clause is nothing short of robbery. I ask those in another place to do a useful job and stop 22 million people being robbed. If the House of Lords did that, I should not retract what I have said, but it would demonstrate that it was defending the underdog and was not the Government's lacky, as are Conservative Back Benchers in this House. If an insurance company took similar action there would be a major uproar and we should have retrospective legislation to protect their clients once they had paid their contribution.
This clause contains the meat of the Government's cuts. It is a cut of £360 million out of £560 million in the national

insurance system. It is 360 times the amount that the Government will get by cutting the benefits to strikers' families in clause 6. That is the scale of clause 4. I hope for once that the media, including "Today in Parliament", will start describing the Bill as an instrument to cut contributory national insurance benefits affecting 22 million people.

Mr. Richard Needham: I hope that in the few words that I shall say I can give clause 4 deeper consideration than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The hon. Gentleman could perhaps have applied his mind to the financial savings implicit in the Bill and looked carefully at the figures proposed by the Government. My right hon. Friend must be sick and tired of going through the figures with me, but I should like to take him again through the financial implications. The House deserves to have them fully explained.
8 pm
The Bill implies that the saving will be £360 million in 1982–83 cash prices. This is based on making up the figures, mentioned by my right hon. Friend, both in Committee and in a written answer, of £185 million for sickness benefit, £15 million for injury benefit, £35 million for maternity allowance, £110 million for unemployment benefit and £15 million for widows' allowances. The problem is that the £110 million unemployment benefit in 1982–83 compares with a figure of £96 million for 1979–80 given in a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). According to the White Paper on public expenditure, the number of unemployed in 1982–83 is likely to be 200,000 more than in 1979–80. If £96 million was the correct figure for 1979–80, how can £110 million be the correct figure for 1982–83?
So my right hon. Friend has revised the figure to show that the savings are not £360 million but £378 million—the difference between the figures of £110 million and £96 million, upgraded by his Department. Against this must be put the £75 million estimated as a saving on supplementary benefit. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr looked at the figures he would realise that this is at current prices. One cannot deduct £75 million from £360 million and compare like with like. To compare like with like, one has to take


figures in comparable years. That means adding 18 per cent. to the £75 million and raising it to £89 million. The total saving, in fact, is £378 million less £89 million.
The White Paper uses the sum of £130 million. That is based on 1979 prices. One has to take the £360 million, which should be £378 million, and knock off the £75 million, which should be £89 million. That produces a figure of about £275 million. If one knocks off the increase in supplementary benefit of £75 million, the figure comes down to £200 million. If one adds the effects of the cost to employers of the scheme for paying for short-term sickness, estimated at a further £65 million, one ends up with a total saving, give or take a few million among friends, of £130 million. If, at the end of the day, the figure really is £130 million, how much of this amount will be a true saving? It will not be a saving on the PSBR. The PSBR will have to increase by the amount of additional supplementary benefit paid to those who would otherwise have been entitled to earnings-related supplement. I should like to know how that figure is arrived at, and whether it is likely to stay at that level if more people claim entitlement.
The figure of £96 million given to the hon. Member for Barking has now been revised downwards to £88 million. Is it not possible that the figure of £128 million might also be revised downwards? These figures come about because the Government Actuary determines what will be the levels of contribution to the national insurance fund. As the hon. member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, in an interjection on Second Reading, for there to be a reduction in public expenditure, there has to be a reduction in the terms of the settlements and not a reduction in the terms of the contributions. If there is a reduction on both sides, the books will balance. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, in the debate on 31 March, on the Budget resolutions:
 Title to earnings-related supplement is determined by the benefits paid in the previous year. It is a pay-as-you-go system rather than an insurance system. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of that. There will be no contributions for earnings related supplement paid in the preceding year."—[Official Report, 31 March 1980; Vol. 982, col. 162.]

If that is the case, the contributions are likely to be taken into account, as my right hon. Friend said on another occasion, in working out what will be the actual contributions against the settlements. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he accepted that. But the problem is that this is such a tiny percentage of the total of £15 billion that it is difficult to ask the Government Actuary how he will make sure that the figure comes out right. In the past the Government Actuary has got it wrong. Because he bases the contributions on what the Government tell him will be the rate of wage settlements, the amount that the Government Actuary has had in surplus has been consistently greater than he anticipated. My right hon. Friend made this point in Committee. It is worth looking at the table showing how the Government Actuary costed the contributions for 1980. He states:
 average earnings in the period from September 1979 to March 1980 will be 7 per cent. higher than in the period April to August 1979 and the average in the tax year 1980–81 will be !4 per cent. higher than in 1979–80.
I do not wish to be pessimistic. I would have thought that 14 per cent. is likely to be on the low side of what would actually happen. If it comes out higher and wage settlements are higher, the amount of money taken through national insurance contributions will be higher and the surplus on the funds will therefore be higher.
The Government Actuary, working out the settlements from the fund, was instructed to assume that the amount of price increases would be 14 per cent. but the actual amount of benefit that will be settled will be 16½ per cent. on long-term supplementary benefit and 11½ per cent. on short-term supplementary benefit. If the contributions are reduced on the one side and the abolition of the earnings-related supplement means that settlements go down, there will be no saving on public expenditure. There will only be an increase in the PSBR due to greater supplementary benefit payments. If, on the other hand, the Government Actuary gets the figures slightly wrong, as he has done previously, there will be no saving either because the contributions will stay the same. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the money that will go into the fund will be so enormous and


the savings on ERS so small that it will be a drop in the ocean. The actual figures that he says will be saved will be mirages rather than reality.
I am concerned that the scheme for earnings-related supplements, although it may not be the best way of helping mobility, should assist unemployed people at a time when their living standards fall dramatically. The amount of money that they pay towards this earnings-related scheme amounts to perhaps a quarter of 1 per cent. of their income. If this is true, it is a tiny percentage for them to pay to get support to help them to meet an enormous drop in living standards when times get difficult and they lose their jobs.
My right hon. Friend says that only between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of unemployed take earnings related supplement. That is true. A large number of unemployed have been unemployed for longer than one year and therefore have no entitlement, but 43 per cent. of those claiming unemployment benefit receive earnings-related supplement. That is a hefty percentage.
This may not be the best scheme in terms of mobility, but when unemployment is rising it is surely worth trying to find ways of helping people back into jobs and over the drop in living standards. It cannot be right that when pensioners are protected and supplementary benefits rise in line with prices the only sufferers should be those who are becoming unemployed, particularly at a time when the Government's economic policy is destined to ensure that we have a shake-out in old and dying industries. Those people must be protected and helped.
If the £130 million that we are talking about can be used with creativity and flair—it equals the amounts spent on the youth opportunities programme and the job release scheme put together—it could go a long way towards helping people to find new jobs, which would reduce Government spending on unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit.

Mr. Field: The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, because no one noticed the adjustment that the Government were up to until the hon. Gentleman pointed it out on Second Reading. As he has probably done more research than anyone else on the national insurance fund and the Government

Actuary, could he help us on one point? He seems to be suggesting that however the Government present the figures and the arguments they are after making a substantial saving.
I, and perhaps many of my hon. Friends, did not realise until today that if the Government are successful in that move it will lead to an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. I am most interested to know how the Government will get their hands on the £360 million that was detailed in the financial memorandum when the Bill was published.
Has the hon. Gentleman's research led him to anticipate the moves that the Government may make? Do they have power to instruct the Government Actuary not to take account of the abolition of benefits, or does the hon. Gentleman think that they may make the saving by reducing their contribution to the national insurance fund?

Mr. Needham: The Government Actuary is instructed by the Secretary of State and therefore it is up to my right hon. Friend to tell the Government Actuary how to come to his figures. On 31 March my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that contributions would be reduced during the year to take that into account. That is why it is difficult to see how the Government will make the savings.
The Government's answer may be that the amount involved is such a tiny percentage of the fund that it might happen anyway, because the Government Actuary is asked to take into account wage increases of 14 per cent. for 1980–81, when they may be considerably higher. The take will therefore be that much greater.
We are uncertain about where the savings will be made and how much they will be. Indeed, it is possible that they will not take place at all. When unemployment is rising by so much, it would be of enormous assistance, even if the earnings-related supplement is not the best way of helping the unemployed, to use at least part of the money for retraining and increased mobility. When the unemployment problem is becoming more relentless and more difficult to solve, that would be a better way to proceed.
I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties. If he says that we have to


find savings in public expenditure from somewhere, I suggest that we should link the price of beer and tobacco with inflation, or shade the tax thresholds. Perhaps we should not have taken action on stamp duty on houses costing less than £20,000.
With the uncertain statistics and the increase facing us on unemployment, it would surely be better to use the money to help people to find other jobs and to reduce the problem. Otherwise, in a year or two, the Government will regret what they have done. I must tell my right hon. Friend, therefore, that I cannot support clause 4 in its present form.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I trust that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) will forgive me if I do not follow his onslaught on the Government Actuary. However, I certainly applaud the hon. Gentleman's healthy scepticism of Government statisticians in general.
The procedures of the House are designed to ensure that legislation is fully debated, that contentious issues are identified and that the Government are provided with the opportunity of justifying and explaining their policies. For some inexplicable reason, that does not seem to have happened, to any great effect, on the proposals in clause 5 to restrict access to unemployment benefit by occupational pensioners in receipt of a weekly pension of £35 or more.
Hon. Members who search the Hansard reports of the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage will be left with the inevitable conclusion that there has been almost a conspiracy of silence among Ministers on the proposal in clause 5 to restrict access to unemployment benefit by those in receipt of occupational pensions.
Ministers have demonstrated what I can only describe as uncharacteristic reluctance to say anything at all on the subject. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have refused to meet objectors to the proposal. There has been no discussion between Ministers and groups representing occupational pensioners, who see their right of access to unemployment benefit being restricted. Politically speaking, one can understand why Ministers have demonstrated such reluctance to

meet those who are understandably concerned about the proposal.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I had a longish meeting this morning with representatives of the Civil Service unions and we went into the argument with great care.

Mr. Morris: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has at least met representatives of one group of pensioners. I hope that he will now find time to meet the Council of Post Office Unions, which is equally concerned.
The Government's proposal envisages that whereas at the moment occupational pensioners in retirement can receive unemployment earnings-related benefit, for a period of six months, in future, any pensioner who receives an occupational pension of £35 a week or more will have his entitlement to unemployment benefit restricted, with a £1 reduction for every £1 of pension over £35 a week
I am concerned about Post Office workers on low occupational pensions. The mass of Post Office workers are obliged to retire at the age of 60 and many receive extremely modest occupational pensions of £40 to £45 a week. Under this proposal, this group of people has been singled out to be denied, pound for pound, everything they receive over £35 a week.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that on occasions low-paid workers accept low pay in the belief that an occupational pension is a fringe benefit to which they will be entitled in due course and that they are now to be denied that benefit?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was impressed by his contribution on this subject in Committee. This proposal by the Government is discriminatory and divisive. It is discriminatory because of the Government's refusal to lower the retiring age for men—the State retiring age—and therefore access to the State retirement pension. That means that this proposal affects men only. It does not affect women because women have access to the State retirement pension at 60.
It is divisive because the proposal will bear heavily on those on incomes that are less than the national average and it


will turn people against making provision for retirement through occupational pension schemes.
The Secretary of State should appreciate that the proposal is a breach of the national insurance principle. I believe that it heralds the introduction of means testing for access to unemployment benefit.
I made a brief reference to the reluctance of Ministers to meet groups who are concerned about this proposal and I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say just now that he has met the Civil Service unions. I can understand the reluctance of Ministers to say anything on this subject. However, they should answer these criticisms.
The Secretary of State has not always been reluctant to talk on this particular issue. I quote from a letter of the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions to the Secretary of State. He said:
 I write about the Social Security No. (2) Bill, clause 5. I think I need hardly remind you of the issues involved, as you gave the Council and other interested parties much appreciated assistance when the issue was last raised in 1976 (your letter to me of the 3rd December 1976 refers).
What did the Secretary of State say in that letter of 3 December 1976 to the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions which encouraged the coun-cil to believe that the Secretary of State—he was spokesman for the Opposition on social security matters at the time—would agree with them in their opposition to the proposals which were then before the House? The Secretary of State should be forthcoming with the House. What did he say to the Secretary-General of the Council of Post Office Unions at that time which led him to believe that the Secretary of State was with the council? The letter continues:
 You will recall, I am sure, that the matter had been raised before (in 1966, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee) and that in subsequent consideration in 1971 the House expressed its disquiet I recall that Sir Brandon Rhys Williams characterised the proposal as a form of double taxation on people with occupational pension schemes. Our view, as in the past, is that if occupational pensioners are looking for work, then they should be entitled to benefit in precisely the same way as other contributors."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 May 1980; c. 932.]
Is there any Member of this House who would disagree with that line of thought?
People have many reservations at present about the attitude of the public at large to the established political order of this country. I honestly believe that nothing is more conducive to or engenders more cynicism and frustration than politicians saying one thing at one moment and doing the opposite when they have the power and the authority to do that which they had indicated previously could not be done.
This issue has been before the House on three previous occasions and has been rejected on those occasions. I believe that the House rejected this policy on those previous occasions in fairness and on principle. I believe that the House should reject it on this occasion.

Dr. Brians Mawhinney: I suspect that there is a temptation for those of us who are new to the House to believe that our wisdom is greater than the accumulated wisdom of the years in this House. Therefore, I took time to go back to the introduction of the earnings-related supplement in 1966. I wished to read the arguments that were advanced at that time in support of this measure. I quote the introductory speech on Second Reading by the then Minister, Miss Herbison, who spoke of:
 the important part which earnings-related unemployment benefit can play in promoting the mobility of labour which is very much needed to meet economic and technological change. The provision of the Bill for earnings-related unemployment benefit is complementary to the Redundancy Payments Act. Both of them are to be seen in the setting of the economic needs of this country.
Before this Bill was introduced into the House that was still perceived to be the justification for the earnings-related supplement. In that Second Reading debate in 1966 Conservative Members indicated that they accepted the principle of the Bill and that they would help to get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I quote the Minister again, speaking on Third Reading. She said:
 I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for ensuring that we got it as quickly as possible."—[Official Report, 17 February 1966; Vol. 724, c. 1627.]
In other words both sides of this House agreed on the need for this measure, on the principle that was embodied in the measure, and the importance of it. It was important inasmuch as the measure was


rushed through prior to an impending election
8.30 pm
There has been no discussion in this Chamber since then about the importance of the earnings-related supplement. I had the Library do some research for me. I understand that, other than for adjustments, the matter has not been debated on the Floor of this Chamber since its introduction. That seems to be some sort of a record and an indication of bipartisan support for the measure.
I say that by way of introduction because it sets the context for the Budget Statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March this year in which he said:
The ERS scheme itself has been diminishing in worth and effectiveness over recent years. Redundancy payments are now more generous and the development of the employers' sick pay scheme means that ERS is much less needed than formerly. Of the unemployed, only about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. are in receipt of ERS at any one time. All in all, the Government would find it difficult to justify its retention."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1461.]
My right hon. and learned Friend, in support of the argument for abolition, said that the numbers using the scheme were small—10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The latest figures which I have—the Government may have more recent figures—are for May 1979. In that month, 176,000 people were in receipt of earnings-related supplement. The judgment whether that is an important number must be seen against the statement by the Minister who introduced the scheme in 1966. On that occasion—7 February 1966, c. 40—she told the House that about 110,000 people would be eligible for earnings-related supplement.
The then Conservative Opposition queried that figure and suggested that it might be closer to 180,000. Be that as it may, the numbers it was envisaged would benefit from this scheme when it was introduced with bipartisan support were fewer than the numbers in receipt of benefit under this scheme in May 1979. Therefore, from my point of view, it seems hard to understand why the Government want to advance the numbers argument to justify the abolition of the scheme as the numbers today seem, if anything, to be greater than they were

When they constituted a pressing need for the introduction of the scheme in 1966.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that in his Budget Statement my right hon. and learned Friend said that it was
about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent… . at any one time."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980: Vol. 980, c. 1461.]
But he did not tell us the rate of turnover of ERS beneficiaries. Therefore, we have no means of knowing how many people per year are in receipt of earnings-related supplement. If we assume a turnover time of six months, we are talking about 350,000 people. If we are talking about a turnover time of three months, we are up to 750,000 people per year in receipt of ERS.

Mr. Needham: I asked the Minister for these figures. The number of those who received earnings-related supplement in the last year available was 1 million. That obviously included sickness benefits as well.

Dr. Mawhinney: Whatever that proves, it proves that the numbers are considerable. They are between 500,000 and 1 million people a year. That is important, because starting at 110,000 we have now reached between 500,000 and 1 million people a year. Yet the argument advanced is that we should discontinue the scheme because the numbers involved are not significant.

Mr. Rooker: I have the figures before me. I extracted them from a parliamentary answer. It may be of help to the House to have these figures. They are a little difficult to follow. On sickness benefit there were 291,000 on a day—I stress "on a day"—and on injury benefit there were 27,000 on a day when the numbers were last counted. On maternity benefit there was 198,000 women per annum. On unemployment benefit, there were 204,000 on a day. Finally, on widows' allowance there were 46,000 per annum. The two benefits affecting women are given as annual totals. The others have a turnover, so the sum is probably in excess of 1 million.

Dr. Mawhinney: The House has already heard the figures advanced by the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about


significant numbers of people. That is my point.
We must ask ourselves whether the need for earnings-related supplement has diminished since it was introduced in 1966. On Second Reading it appeared that the measure was introduced for three reasons. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that those reasons are as valid today as they were in 1966. It is unquestionably difficult for people to cope with a big decrease in income once they lose their jobs. The earnings-related supplement was designed to take the catastrophic edge off unemployment. That is at least as true today as it was in 1966. Taking the size of a mortgage as only one example, there is a catastrophic effect of a sudden decrease in income related to unemployment. For that reason, the timing of the abolition of earnings-related supplement is especially bad, bearing in mind the substantial increase in unemployment which, for whatever reasons, hon. Members on both sides expect to take place in the coming months. We are not here to debate the reasons this evening.
It was said that the earnings-related supplement would promote the mobility of labour. That is an important matter in this day and age. It lies at the heart of one of the main aspects of Government policy. The Conservative Government were elected because of the desire to see people moved out of unproductive jobs to productive jobs and to ensure increased mobility of labour. That was one of the planks on which we fought and won the general election. That being a main plank of our policy, I find it difficult to understand how we can introduce a measure which flies in the face of it.
We are talking about reasonably significant amounts of money. On the basis of 1978–79 earnings, the average earnings-related supplement was £14.49 per week. Although we shall debate the size of the decreases under the other clauses, this is by far the biggest decrease proposed in the income of our citizens. The sum of £14.49 will make a considerable difference to most families facing unemployment as they seek new jobs, perhaps elsewhere in the country.
There may well be a negative aspect to this proposal. Again, we are trying to encourage people to move out of unproductive jobs. The prospect of a large

decrease in income, not cushioned by earnings-related supplement, may mean that many people will remain in unproductive jobs who otherwise could have been enticed to change their employment into a more profitable area. In other words, the whole thrust of the clause seems to be exactly opposite to the Government's declared intention. I accept the cost argument. It was dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). His figure agrees with the White Paper figure but it is not that which, understandably, was used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is £130 million. That is a tiny percentage of the national insurance fund's expenditure—about 1 per cent. of it. For individuals it represents a good and effective insurance against unemployment.
What disturbs me about the facts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham referred is that the £130 million is not a reliable figure. It falls within the accepted statistical error of the Government Actuary.
I have taught statistics at university level—

Mr. Skinner: Like Harold Wilson.

Dr. Mawhinney: That is one of the few things that I have in common with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). We would not dream of making decisions—nor would I dream of teaching my students to make decisions, particularly in the medical sphere—on the basis of the type of statistical error which is involved in this computation. The Government might choose to say that the economic argument is defensible. The scientific argument is certainly indefensible.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when winding up the debate on 31 March said:
 the supplement is only about 1 per cent. of the total amount of national insurance benefits paid. So it will make an insignificant difference to the level of contributions to the national insurance fund which the Government settle on. That will be determined by the larger benefits, such as pensions. Because of the rising number of pensioners relative to the working population, the likelihood is that contributions will rise. It is a much larger factor in the equation than the relatively small effect of the abolition of the earnings-related supplement."—[Official Report, 31 March 1980; Vol. 982, c. 162.]


It seems that it is permissible to turn the argument round and say that if the contribution for earnings-related supplement is such a negligible part of the contribution to the national insurance fund, and if the Government insist on trying to save £130 million—we have already discussed whether that is ephemeral or substantive—and the cost of doing that is so small in relation to the national insurance contribution, then it is obvious that we could increase the national insurance contribution marginally. In that way the earnings-related supplement is protected.
My right hon. Friends will continue to say that public expenditure must be decreased. I accept that without reservation. In the last 12 months I have voted for that and I shall continue to do so. However, it appears necessary to have a degree of selectivity when we reduce public expenditure. It is not sustainable to argue that public expenditure must always be saved across the board, irrespective of the implications. Government policy has other strands. The argument is that £130 million must be found out of the social security budget. I have already made one suggestion about how that could be done.
8.45 pm
The social security budget is, in one sense, an arbitrary beast. It has been carved out of the Budget. If it is thought difficult to save £130 million out the social security budget, it is certainly not difficult to save it out of the Budget. For example, in a full year the savings envisaged in the Budget from alcohol, tobacco and betting are £503 million. It would have been quite possible for that extra money to have been found from those.
It may be argued that the time is never right to cut benefits. As I said on Second Reading—and my right hon. Friend the Minister agreed—there is nothing in the Bill that makes my heart leap with joy. The cut envisaged in the clause is the largest of any of the cuts. It is different because it goes to the heart of not only the provision of social security benefits, but of the whole economic philosophy of the Government. It will alienate a large body of moderate working opinion, whose support we have been seeking

through the implementation of other policies. It will militate against our policies to seek the redistribution of employment. It is of a dubious nature as far as public spending is concerned.
The clause deals with additions as well as the earnings-related supplement. I wish that those were not necessary, but, given the economic necessity behind the Bill, I could not oppose them in the Lobby. The earnings-related supplement lies at the heart of the argument about the country's economic health. If we get that right, all the other decreases in the Bill can be reversed. In my judgment, the abolition of ERS will reduce the prospect of quicker economic recovery, and such a recovery is the best way to restore the cuts in the Bill. I shall not vote for the amendment. I implore my right hon. Friend to reconsider the clause. Depending on what he says, I may not be able to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: It is refreshing to take part in a debate at a time when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) has made a speech in which he almost announced that he might abstain. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) introduced a number of statistics, and indicated that he might abstain also. It is a day when the Government are talking not about doing a U-turn on wages but about beginning to turn the corner. I welcome the possible abstentions. I think that the hon. Members are very wise. They summed up the position fairly accurately.
One of the main planks of Tory Party policy was to say "We will drive those scroungers out of our midst and get not only the white-collar workers but the blue-collar workers on our side". There is some evidence to show that because of a certain lack of ability in the previous Labour Government there was undoubtedly some support in that area. The attack upon the earnings-related payments falls into the category that has been spelt out by the Secretary of State's horrible friends.
There is no doubt that the measure was first introduced in the halcyon days prior to the 1966 victory. It is no wonder that the Tory Party supported it at that time. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was grovelling for all the votes that he could find. At that time, shortly


before the March 1966 election, it was a positive and welcome measure for many working-class people.
One of the problems that we have faced for decades is the great divide between blue-collar and white-collar workers. Earnings-related supplement was part of the attempt to bridge the gap. Why was it that half of the coalfields were out on the "Day of Action"? Those who ask that question need look no further than clauses 4 and 5. Some of us in the House and others outside explained their effect to miners. They are men who have to suffer injuries and sickness to a greater extent than Members of Parliament.
We can usually get into this place if we have influenza or many other types of disease, and if we cannot the money is in the tin for us. However, for miners, engineers and many who work in the blue-collar trades there is the economic necessity of having to get to work. The introduction of the earnings-related supplement helped them to stay off work a little longer—perhaps to seek another job or to convalesce to a greater extent than would otherwise have been possible.
I do not know whether I want Conservative Members to shoot this fox. I do in my heart, of course, but the occupants of the Government Front Bench are hell-bent on suicide. They actually believe that by cutting public expenditure across the board it will bring some wonderful results. There is always a time lag between cutting public expenditure and the change of attitude of the public. There was only a 6 per cent. swing in the local elections, but it will grow to 16 per cent. and 26 per cent. by the time that measures such as those contained in the Bill come to the knowledge of the people.
Nearly every colliery in the country was told about clause 5 in the few days prior to the "Day of Action". Mine-workers understood only too well the vindictive and revengeful attitude of the Government against the miners. They are seeking to take away about £12 million to £15 million from miners who have retired early. I remember that when Conservative Members were in opposition they applauded measures to introduce the early retirement scheme to give those who had been down in the bowels of the earth for 40 or 50 years a chance to get up in the daylight a little earlier.
They suggest that the National Coal Board will be able to find the £15 million, but the board does not have any money. The Tories have told us for years that nationalised industries do not have any money. They say that it all belongs to someone else. The wealth creators are the miners in the pits. It is the taxpayer who has to foot the bill on occasions. When they say that they will get rid of £15 million, they are proposing to shift it out of one pocket and to put it in the other.
What is the attitude of the press to a measure of this sort? We have a Tory rebellion—perhaps it will be minute—on our hands. The Government are taking from the poor to give to the rich. Where are the Tory Sun, the Tory Daily Express, the Tory Daily Star and all the other recognised Tory newspapers? Where are they, to comment upon this lousy and vindictive piece of legislation that the Tories have introduced?
Another group that will not be very happy about these measures consists of small employers. They are not happy about having to bridge the gap. There are those in my constituency—I had it in mind to mention the constituent who sent me £50 during the general election campaign—who will be incensed at the way in which the Government are getting, as they put it, out of the small employer's hair. They are getting out all right, but they are saying in the next breath, and in a different tone, "You will have to foot the bill. The workers and the trade unions will demand that." The small employers will be tremendously concerned about the effect of the Bill. That is another reason why some Conservative Members have strong reservations about it.
The Government always say that there is plenty of money in the country. However, in the next breath they say "There is no money and we cannot continue to do all these things. We must cut somewhere." The fact is that there is plenty of money. There is a bonanza around the corner. Of course, most of it belongs to the oil companies. It goes across to America and all over the world, but there is still about £15,000 million left with which we can play.
There is plenty of money to look after earnings-related schemes and to ensure that the miners' voluntary retirement


scheme is kept intact and improved upon. There is plenty of money to ensure that hordes of blue-collar workers can retire at 60 or younger. During this period when, as a result of technology, more and more people will be thrown on the scrap-heap, why should there not be occupational pension schemes? Why should there not be a greater rapport between people who work with their hands and those who supposedly work with their brains?
There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money when Princess Anne wanted the gutters on her house mended. I am told that she has applied for another grant. There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money when the house was bought for her. There was plenty of money when Mr. Blunt was sent to examine the house. The Queen asked the taxpayer to buy her daughter a wonderful house, and she sent Mr. Blunt to look over it to see that it was all right. He forgot to look at the gutters. There was a lot wrong with the house, and that is why the taxpayer had to find extra thousands of pounds.
There is plenty of money in the country. There was plenty of money to pay the transfer fee for Ian MacGregor.
There was plenty of money for the Prime Minister when she moved into Downing Street, after she made that so-called passionate plea about St. Francis of Assisi. Her tone was different when she went inside. It was no longer soft and dulcet. She picked up the telephone and said "Shift that Rover that Mr. Callaghan has been using from the back yard. I want two Daimlers." She wanted two Daimlers—one for herself and one for her husband.
This tawdry Government are beset by their pay problems, and they are wondering whether they can still take on the trade unions. They used the press last week and during the weeks before. Now they want some sort of compliance from the trade unions in order to try to solve their problems. But Labour Members are not here to solve their problems.
The Secretary of State is introducing a measure that he will not easily forget. He once told people to clean their teeth in the dark. That lasted for a while, but it did not mean very much. These measures

are vindictive. People will respond" and the so-called workers that the Government thought had moved to their side for ever during the election campaign are quickly returning to their natural fold.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hope I shall be able to make myself heard above the echoes of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker—or in the wisdom of one of the previous occupants of the Chair—it was decided to take two amendments together, so we have been discussing clauses 4 and 5. The bulk of the debate has centred on clause 4. I shall, therefore, touch briefly on clause 5 first. I shall deal with the points that were made principally by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), who put the case fairly for retaining the entitlement to unemployment benefit for people over 60 who have retired on occupational pensions. Unwittingly, he was not helped by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who intervened during his speech and referred to this entitlement as a fringe benefit.

Mr. Eastham: Mr. Eastham indicated dissent.

Mr. Rooker: No, the pension.

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, I withdraw my remark. I misunderstood him.
This is the fourth time that successive Governments have sought to bring this measure before the House. On previous occasions the House has not felt it to be right.
The hon. Member for Bolsover de scribed this in very strong language, as vicious, vindictive and all the rest. The measure that we are bringing in is exactly the same as the measure brought in——

Mr. Skinner: I voted against it then.

9 pm

Mr. Jenkin: That does not warrant the strength of language that the hon. Gentleman used. There is a question of a balance of justice as against the need to attain savings. The fact is that successive Governments have felt it right to bring before the House the proposition that those who have retired at the age at which they expected to retire—60—


and have retired on a significant occupational pension cannot really be regarded as any longer in the work environment and ought, therefore, not to be entitled to unemployment benefit.
The argument of many of us who have opposed this before—and, as I have already said in the House, I opposed it before—was that the right way to deal with this is by the proper enforcement of the availability for work rule. Successive Governments have said that it cannot be done that way. One cannot apply the availability for work rule in the great majority of cases to which the clause would apply.
I have looked at this argument again very carefully and I have been given, no doubt, exactly the same advice as was given to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals)—that it cannot be done because large numbers of those who have retired in these circumstances are living in places where there just is not work available to offer them. If one cannot offer it to a man, one cannot decide that he has refused it and so disentitle him to benefit. Yet surveys have shown that up to 55 per cent. of those who are drawing unemployment benefit in these circumstances are not really looking for work.
When a Government are being forced to make savings, as we are, in the social security budget, as I explained in an earlier debate, and when we are endeavouring to protect pensioners—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) was not present during the earlier debate. I spelt out how inescapable, but how unpalatable, it is, that a Government have to come forward with measures of this sort.

Mr. Orme: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the miners' early retirement scheme was not in operation at the time about which he is talking? Therefore, there are special circumstances affecting early retirement. These affect Post Office workers, miners and other manual workers who were not under consideration when we were discussing this matter previously.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand that. Therefore, that is a particular condition to which the clause applies which did not apply previously. But that is not a reason for not bringing forward the clause, because

in relation to the substantial savings which clause 5 produces, the marginal amounts involved in the case of the two schemes run by the National Coal Board—the miners' early retirement scheme and the redundancy payments scheme—are very much smaller.
There is no way in which the coal industry can be protected from the effects of the benefit reductions. The terms of the two schemes mean that the miner is automatically protected during the period for which he has a guarantee of a proportion of his previous earnings, except to the extent that taxable NCB payments would replace the non-taxable unemployment benefit. But when taxation of unemployment benefit comes into force in 1982, the advantages for the mineworkers in the provision of taking unemployment benefit into account would in any case disappear. From 1982 the scheme provisions would therefore probably have to be completely changed, removing the assumption that unemployment benefit will be claimed, and the effect of clauses 1 and 4 is limited to the period between now and then.
As to the application of clause 5 to the miners' schemes, the proposal is that it would be on the basis that the clause will apply to payments made to mine-workers under the early retirement scheme because they are retired and what they have is a pension, but the clause would not be applied to payments made under the redundancy payments scheme.
As there is a power to make regulations, we shall give effect to that. Those who are affected by the redundancy payments scheme will have been affected on a basis other than that of retirement. They would have been expected to have had work. Therefore the clause will not apply to them. The question of financing the burden that would fall on the National Coal Board is one that concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: If I had caught Mr. Speaker's eye during this short debate, I would have made a speech on this point. The Secretary of State is putting the onus on the National Coal Board. He must realise that the Coal Industry Bill is before the House. That Bill will change the basis of the grants that the National Coal Board


receives. The National Coal Board will therefore be unable to find such a considerable amount of money. In the coalfields, this Bill is known as "Prentice's revenge." There will be one heck of a furore when the mineworkers realise how this provision and that of the early retirement scheme will affect them. The Secretary of State should get his finger out and consider the effects on the National Coal Board.

Mr. Jenkin: I have given a broad indication that the Government do not intend to apply the scheme to the mine-workers' redundancy payments scheme. Mineworkers are no different from other retirement pensioners who retire at 60. It would be difficult to argue that there is a privileged group of citizens to whom the law should not apply.
I have already pointed out that we do not intend to apply clause 5 to the redundancy payments scheme. As regards the argument made by the right hon. Member for Openshaw, successive Governments have felt that it was time that the entitlement condition for unemployment benefit should be changed. The House should grasp that nettle and make that change. I have discussed this issue with representatives of the retired and I have found that they do not give high priority to the retention of the entitlement in comparison with other claims, which they felt should be given higher priority.
Turning to earnings-related supplement, I shall give a brief answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He devoted his argument to a non-sentence that I did not utter. He hardly made any points about the merits of the case. Indeed, the argument was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) and for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The hon. Member for Perry Barr asked why the statement had not been made in the House. The answer is that I crossed it out before I got up to make my statement.

Mr. Rooker: Why?

Mr. Jenkin: I did not think that it was an appropriate sentence to put in the statement. Most people would consider that Hansard—not some press release—contained an accurate statement of what I said.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. He has takes a great deal of trouble to reconcile the figures that appear in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill with the figure in the White Paper on public expenditure in respect of what we expect to achieve by making such savings. There are two differences. First, the figures in the Bill are based on current prices, whereas those in the White Paper are based on 1979 survey prices. Secondly, the White Paper takes account of the employers' statutory sick pay scheme on the assumption that the Government have included this proposal in their public expenditure projections. The Bill cannot do that, because it is not yet law. It is subject only to consultation.
In the explanatory and financial memorandum the earnings-related supplement savings are given as £360 million. On the basis of the Government Actuary's revisions it would appear that that figure should be a little higher, perhaps reaching £378 million or more. There is a supplementary benefit offset of £75 million in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Again, that figure may be higher, at about £89 million or £90 million. That would give a balance figure of about £288 million. If that amount is converted into 1979 survey prices, and if allowance is made for the switch to employers' statutory sick pay, one gets a figure of about £135 million. The latest estimates by the Government Actuary suggest that the figure may be more than that, at about £145 million. That is a substantial sum that is needed to contribute to the overall savings that the Government must have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham went on to ask how the Government would get their hands on the savings. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked whether it would be done by reducing the Treasury supplement of 18 per cent.—or the Exchequer contribution, as it is often called in the vernacular. The answer is "No". It is not intended to do that. No legislation has been introduced and that is not currently in mind. I must emphasise to the House that it is really quite impossible at this stage, in the first half of 1980, to forecast with any precision the overall effect on the contributions, on the size of the surplus and on the balance of the fund


as a result of the changes in clause 4 of the Bill. However, one can say with total certainty that if the Bill goes through and the saving is made, there will be a reduction in public spending of between £135 million and £145 million. That is important as part of the Government's overall strategy to reduce the burden of public expenditure.
It is impossible to say what the effect of this will be on the contributions because there are so many assumptions that must be made. The Government Actuary makes his estimates on the basis of assumptions about the rate of unemployment, the numbers of unemployed, the numbers of sick and so on. All these factors are fed into his calculations so that he can work out the necessary contributions to meet the outgo. But there still remains the decision that the Government must make on whether the balance in the fund is appropriate as a working balance to support the outgo.
We must remember that we are talking about the difference between two fairly large aggregates—currently about £15 billion and by 1982, when this finally takes effect, it might be as much as £20 billion. Against that, the variations of the Bill can be said to be within the margins of error. The savings are not uncertain. The savings are needed and they will be made. However, one cannot say whether this will be automatically reflected in a reduction of contributions, or whether it will be necessary to increase the size of the balance.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Surely the argument works both ways. Clearly, if there is a reduction in Government spending it is quantifiable at around £130 million. In the same way, the reduction in national insurance contributions is also quantifiable. If the two balance, there will be no net effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. The PSBR, which is a burden on public expenditure, is balanced by an increase in Government revenue.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right in putting it in those strictly mathematical terms. But I am trying to point out that as of today—21 May 1980—I cannot now advise the House that there would necessarily be a reduction in the contributions which would match this. I understand the points that have been made, but the balance of the fund—the working

balance—has fallen in recent years from about four months' outgo to rather less than three months' outgo. It is certainly an argument, with the uncertainties of the years ahead, that the Government may consider it right to restore that balance to four months' outgo, in which case one could not expect to see a reduction in the contributions to match it.

Mr. Field: Why does the Secretary of State keep telling the House that he does not know what is happening on the contribution side? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other hon. Member that the contribution year is different from the benefit year. We are already in the contribution year for the first year in which his Department is running down benefits. The Government have already decided not to change the contribution. There is a saving in public expenditure by keeping up the level of contributions but disengaging benefits. However, that then pushes people on to supplementary benefit, which, as the hon. Member for Chippenham pointed out, will increase the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand that argument, but the additional increase in supplementary benefit is part of the calculation that has arrived at the net saving of £130 million. The hon. Gentleman has a great understanding of these matters, but he has uncharacteristically fallen into the error of confusing how benefits are paid for with measuring the entitlement of the individual. The benefits are paid on a pay-as-you-go basis. [Interruption.] This year's contributions are paying for this year's benefits. That is the basis on which successive Governments have run the national insurance fund. The question of entitlement to benefit—[Interruption.]
I must ask for protection, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Birkenhead is continually speaking from a seated position.
Entitlement to benefit is based on the the individual's contribution record in a previous period. However, it is wrong to imagine that the contributions that the individual paid in that period are paying for the benefits that he may be entitled to in a later period. It is merely a method of measuring entitlement and determining whether an individual is entitled. It is


not a means of paying for benefits. The benefits are paid for by the contributions in those years.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the change in his Budget Statement before the beginning of the financial year. Everyone is paying contributions this year in the knowledge that those contributions will not entitle them to earnings-related benefit from January 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough advanced the powerful argument that this is still an important benefit. I do not say that it is insignificant. However, over the past 10 years it has been allowed to fall by almost 50 per cent. Successive Governments have felt that earnings-related supplement is less important in the scheme of things than the other benefits paid out of the national insurance fund. For a man on average earnings, in September 1971 earnings-related benefit averaged £22·95 at today's prices. By next November the figure will be £12·69. If that is expressed as the percentage of the benefit for a single man, it has fallen from 112 per cent. to 61·5 per cent. If it is expressed as a percentage of net earnings for a single man, it has fallen from 30·5 per cent., to 16·9 per cent. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was referring to. Over the years successive Governments—the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the Labour Government in the five years from 1974—felt that it was not a benefit that needed to keep pace. It has become less important.
Therefore when one is looking for savings in the social security budget, and is determined to protect pensioners against rising prices, maintain the safety net for the supplementary benefit, do what one can for needy families in work through family income supplement, protect the mobility allowance and so on, one seeks benefits enjoyed by those who are, perhaps, not so badly off.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I take the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Will he also take on board the fact that earlier this evening the House passed a clause that imposes a 5 per cent. abatement on unemployment benefit?

The combined effect of this clause and the one that we have passed is that for a small group of arbitrarily chosen unemployed people and people on sickness benefit the cut in benefit is not 5 per cent, but, in some cases, can be up to 20 per cent.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend may be right. I do not have that figure in mind. There are two factors that I must mention. Since the earnings-related supplement was introduced, there has been a great extension of employers' sick pay schemes. A Green Paper on statutory sick pay estimates that 80 per cent. or more of employees are now covered by some form of employers' sick pay scheme. It is possibly for that reason that successive Government's have felt it right not to maintain the value.
Secondly, there has been considerable extension of redundancy agreements going beyond the statutory minimum. They are now widespread and generous in the public sector. They are increasingly widespread in the private sector. The question of mobility and technological change was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. It is more attractive to individuals that they should receive a lump sum on redundancy than have the prospect of an earnings-related benefit so long ago as they are out of work. That is what unions are prepared to bargain for. That is what is progressively happening.
In these circumstances, the Government have concluded that as savings have to be found—it is inescapable that we make some savings in the social security budget—this is a benefit that can be more easily dropped than many others. I ask the House to reject the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perry Bar and to support the clause.

Mr. Orme: The House will consider the Secretary of State's reply on the amendments dealing with clauses 4 and 5 as entirely unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has not had one supporter in favour of what the Government are doing. He did not address himself to the point on clause 5 about the miners and the postal workers. My right hon. Friends for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made the point that the early


retirement scheme was designed to assist people, not least in heavy manufacturing work.
The right hon. Gentleman may regret saying that the miners are not a special case. The Labour Government decided that the miners were a special case and that they had a special call upon early retirement. The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush the proposal aside. He should inform the House that the Department of Energy or his own Department will take the weight off the National Coal Board. The new borrowing powers in the Coal Industry Bill will not allow the board to offset an amount of £15 or £20 million. A pertinent case has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There will be no opportunity, because of the guillotine, to vote on both clauses. But the vote, so far as the Opposition are concerned, when it occurs, in five or six minutes' time will be against both clauses 4 and 5.
I turn to the question of the earnings-related benefit. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) gave details of the financial implications and the reduced amount of savings that the Government will achieve through abolition of the earnings-related benefit. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be a reduction in national insurance contributions, which would balance the savings on the public sector borrowing requirement.
However, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not deny my claim in the House a few weeks ago that, for several reasons, there would be no reductions in national insurance contributions, even though the benefit is to be abated and later abolished. That is robbery. If any insurance company operated on that basis, some people would go to prison. The Secretary of State cannot get away from the fact that there is bound to be an overlap between contributions one year and the removal of the benefit the following year.

Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend share my alarm that the Secretary of State should mislead the House by saying that this year's contributions are for this year's benefits? The basis of the scheme is that this year's contributions are for benefits next year, and many people who are paying benefits this year will be

denied benefit under the Government's proposals.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State has not addressed himself to that point. Millions of people believe, rightly in my view, that, having contributed to the scheme since 1966, they should receive the benefit when they need it.
The abatement and subsequent abolition of the benefit will mean that people will have contributed to the benefit in one financial year and will not receive it or part of it in the next financial year. That is robbery.

Mrs. Chalker: It is not.

Mr. Orme: The Under-Secretary shakes her head. We have had no evidence that the Government's proposal is not robbery.

Mrs. Chalker: When will the right hon. Gentleman stop misleading the country? We all know that the contribution year is the preceding tax year. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead people into believing that they are entitled to benefits which they were not entitled to under any previous Government unless they had paid contributions in the previous tax year.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Lady has not addressed herself to the point that, in part, people pay this year for the following year. It is no good talking about previous Governments. They did not abate or contemplate abolishing the benefit. I hope that an incoming Labour Government will replace the benefit.

Mr. Skinner: Not "hope". We will do it.

Mr. Orme: No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will play a major part at the Labour Party conference to see that that commitment goes into our manifesto.
It is often not understood that the earnings-related benefit is not only for those who are unemployed. It extends into maternity benefit and benefits for the sick, widows and the disabled. Many categories are covered. Millions are eligible for the benefit and they have had just cause to welcome it. It was created in 1966 to cushion those in an unfortunate situation—for a short time only it is


hoped—and to lift them above the poverty level. The measure affords them the freedom of movement to look for employment and the maternity allowance affords some recompense and help with the family budget.
This Government are removing a basic benefit. We deplore that. I think that the Secretary of State has not answered the case and I hope that his right hon.

Division No. 3221
AYES
[9.30 pm


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Litherland, Robert


Adams, Allen
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Alton, David
Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fitch, Alan
McCusker, H.


Ashton, Joe
Fitt, Gerard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ford, Ben
McKelvey, William


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freud, Clement
McWilliam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan


Bradford, Rev. R.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxton, John


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Hellish, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Cant, R. B.
Haynes, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Molyneaux, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cartwright, John
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Holland, Siuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Morton, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Cohen, Stanley
Homewood, William
Newens, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Horam, John
Ogden, Eric


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cook, Robin F.
Howells, Geraint
O'Neill, Martin


Cowans, Harry
Huckfleld, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Park, George


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Hon Greville
Penhallgon, David


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Davles, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Centra!)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Race, Reg


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Jo


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dobson, Frank
Kilfedder, James A.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dormand, Jack
Kllroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Douglas, Dick
Knox, David
Robertson, George


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Dubs, Alfred
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Dunnett, Jack
Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Ryman, John


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North Weat)
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, John

and hon. Friends will vote with us against the measure.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already prososed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 287.

Sheerman, Barry
Straw, Jack
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Mrs Renée
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Dept ford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Spearing, Nigel
Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wrigglesworlh, Ian


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David
Wright, Sheila


Stallard, A. W.
Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton East)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wellbeloved, James



Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Welsh, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stcddart, David
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kimball, Marcus


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allson, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lang, Ian


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Timothy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawson, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Farr, John
Lee, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Banks, Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Call, Sir Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant 4 Waterloo)


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Loveridge, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Best, Kelth
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford S St)
MacGregor, John


Biggs-Davlson, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan
McQuarrie, Albert


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madal, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhew, Victor
Major, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Greenway, Harry
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Buller, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm£Ew'll)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buller, Hon Adam
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John


Chalker. Mrs. Lynda
Hawksley, Warren
Morgan, Geraint


Channon, Paul
Hcdclle, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Murphy, Christopher


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Myles, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom
Nelson, Anthony


Colvin, Michael
Hofdern, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony


Cormack, Patrlok
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Onslow, Craniey


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)







Patten, John (Oxford)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Pattle, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Percival, Sir Ian
Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pink, R. Bonner
Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Porter, George
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Wakeham, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Speed, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speller, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spence, John
Walker, Bill (Perth £ E Perthshire)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Waller, Gary


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, lain
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Ronton, Tim
Stanley, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd £ Stev'nage)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Tebbit, Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)



St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT IN CASES AFFECTED BY TRADE DISPUTES

Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 36, leave out clause 6.
I shall be brief, as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak—not least those with an interest in clauses 7 and 8.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible in this debate to refer only to clause 6 and not to clauses 7 and 8. Will you advise me?

Mr. Speaker: This debate is confined to the leaving out of clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am as bound by the rules as he is.

Mr. Orme: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to help some hon. Members who have other fish to fry.
I refer to clause 6. I wish to make it clear to the House that the purpose of the clause is entirely different from that of the other clauses in the Bill. This clause is not designed to save public expenditure. We are dealing with a small payment of benefit to strikers' families. The saving on a normal year would be about £1 million. However, the Secretary of State would probably say that in the

past year, with the number of industrial disputes, it could have been as high as £2 million or £3 million in public expenditure terms.
We are discussing an anti-trade union clause aimed at the trade union movement in a vindictive way. The Government believe that it is popular politically. I acknowledge that initially it will be popular with some sections of the community, until they realise what is involved.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Did not the Minister make it clear in Committee that trade unionists and non-trade unionists will be treated in exactly the same way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clause is also vindictive towards a person who is not a member of a trade union but who happens to be caught up in a dispute?

Mr. Orme: I accept that. My hon. Friend will agree that although non-unionists sometimes take industrial action they are in the minority. The clause is aimed at organised workers.
The clause will affect lock-outs. Workers who are locked out will not be able to claim benefit for their families. The media will not carry the basic information about benefits for striker's families. The country should know that strikers, whether married or single, do not receive supplementary benefit when


they are on strike. Last year the total sum paid to strikers for extreme hardship was £6,000. The benefit is virtually non-existent. The clause is aimed at families and the children of people who are involved in industrial disputes.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Employmet will intervene in the debate and that the Secretary of State for Social Services will address the House later. At least it is of some value to have the view of the Department of Employment, because the Secretary of State for Employment does not have any enthusiasm for the clause. That is because the clause is divisive, vindictive and aimed at a section of the community which will be treated worse than any other section of the community which claims supplementary benefit.
A convicted prisoner's family can claim supplementary benefit. We do not object to that, and we want no change in that arrangement. What we object to is that a striker is to be made worse off than a person convicted of a crime. The Secretary of State argues that people take strike action of their own free will and that it is their decision, but families do not take such a decision. They can suffer.
We live in a free society. People are entitled to withdraw their labour. Workers do not withdraw their labour lightly. I have been a shop steward and have led industrial disputes. I know how difficult it is to organise a strike unless the cause is justified. When people take part in an industrial dispute they make a sacrifice, and their families also make a sacrifice.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Whether or not a person is a member of a trade union, his family suffers under the clause. If a person is a non-unionist, he will suffer. Even if a person votes against the strike, he will suffer. Every working-class family, whichever way they vote will suffer under the clause.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that Ministers will say that it is the responsibility of the trade unions. The vast majority of trade unions meet their responsibilities. We pay supplementary benefit to families because we live in a free and civilised society. There is virtually no democracy in the world that does not make arrangements, in one

form or another, for families who become destitute, or who face difficulties, because of industrial action.

Mr. Tony Durant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists throughout the country provide in their contributions to cover the very position about which he is talking? That is something that trade unionists understand. They have given that contribution to help them in the very position that the right hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman knows that trade union contributions that are levied—on a weekly basis in most cases, although not in all cases—are used to meet the administrative costs of the union and the payment of the salaries of officers. In consequence, the amount of money that is needed to finance strikes is not always available. I was a Minister at the time of the firemen's strike last winter, when Conservative Members came to see me in deputations. They deplored the fact that benefit was not being paid to single strikers. They said that they had come across such cases, and were astounded that the benefit was not being paid. [Hon. Members: "Who?"]. They were Conservative Members, who came to see me in deputations. I could give the House chapter and verse on that sort of thing.
The clause will affect industrial relations. It will alter the attitude of trade unions. The vast majority of industrial disputes are unofficial. It is to the benefit of the trade unions to get their members back to work without going through the formality of ballots, with all the difficulties that arise from that. If every unofficial dispute was made official we would find people in dispute for periods of three, four or five times longer than at present. When workers reach explosion point they walk out. That brings the management and the workers together. The trade unions help to oil the wheels, resolve the dispute, and get the workers back to work.
The Government's approach means that more money will be levied to create greater strike funds. There is a good example from the CBI. It established a large strike fund, created from money that had been earned by the workers in the factories.

Mr. Durant: That is not true.

Mr. Orme: It is true. Of course it is true. If the employers are beginning to batten down the hatches, and if the Government are telling the workers that they must batten down the hatches, it will create not fewer but more disputes.
The manner in which the trade union movement works for conciliation and the fact that trade unions do not want industrial disputes and go to great lengths to avoid them—that is what the Department of Employment and ACAS spend a considerable amount of time becoming involved in—are all indications that there is flexibility.
The Bill is another example of future legislation, such as the Employment Bill, that impinges directly on industrial relations. It is producing written law that in many instances will not help the industry. In my opinion it will gravely damage it.

Clause 6, which is vindictive and antitrade union, will do a great deal of harm to industrial relations. The Government seem to think that they have had some

field days. They have been crowing about the 14 May demonstration, British Ley-land and the steel industry. I warn the Government that they will not continue to have success on that scale. They think that they have had success.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: The people do.

Mr. Orme: Never mind what the hon. Lady says about the people. The Government have engineered the present position. Clause 6, like clauses 4 and 5, will eventually damage the Government. I accept that there are short-term political gains for the Government in the clause. They will ride in on it, but the gain will not last for ever.
The clause comes at the tail-end of the Bill. It is the final example that the Bill, from clause 1 to clause 6, is aimed at taking away, abolishing, or removing various benefits. Clause 6 is a vindictive provision against the trade union movement and I ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): I am pleased to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I immediately correct the impression that he has been trying to give, namely, that the clause is vindictive and anti-trade union. The right hon. Member used those terms frequently, as he did in Committee. The Opposition use those words because that is how they want it to be considered. They think that it is to their political advantage to give the impression that that is what the Government are about.
We are not making any great claims over 14 May. The Government have been careful not to do so. We are happy that the general public should draw their own conclusions on the result of 14 May. In Committee there were frequent examples of Opposition Members describing clause 6 as vindictive and anti-trade union. We were told that that would be what the people would be demonstrating against on 14 May. A great effort was made to make that the form of the demonstration.
Let us get the clause into perspective. It is not vindictive and it is not anti-trade union. We are trying to bring about a balance between the financial obligations of unions and managements to the community. It is an issue that has been widely debated over many years. Those of us who were fortunate enough to attend the women's Tory party conference heard the chairman celebrating the fiftieth anniversary and referring to a debate that took place 50 years ago on precisely this subject. No one can suggest that it has not been around for a considerable time.
We are trying to change a trend that became apparent in 1966 and to transfer part of the cost of strike action in the first place to a trade union and, in the second place, to the small number of non-unionists involved in industrial action, to require them to make their own provision for strike pay. As I said in Committee, this has never been an issue of principle for the trade union movement. On page 181 of a TUC report of 1970, it is stated:
After considering the survey in detail, the General Council proceeded to draw up the following principles which unions were recommended to incorporate in their rules ".
I shall not read the principles on strike

procedures, but on dispute benefit the recommendation is:
 To provide for strike benefit to be paid to members involved in an authorised strike and, if necessary, to establish funds to provide such benefits.
So there is no question of principle. The principle has been established for a considerable time. The trade unions should be interested in the way in which we examine that principle as regards different unions and the different levels of benefits. We are trying to bring a sense of reason and responsibility into the question of those who pay strike benefits to members on strike and those who do not.
10 pm
There is a great difference between the various unions. The Transport and General Workers Union pays £6 a week. The AEUW pays £9 a week, the General and Municipal Workers Union pays £10·50 a week, NALGO pays 55 per cent. gross of pay, NUPE pays £5 a week, ASTMS pays £15 a week, the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union pays £15 a week, and the NUT gives net pay to its members. So there is a great variation in benefits paid by unions to their members on strike. No one can argue that this provision is anti-trade union. It is an established practice, and it has varied between one union and another. During the recent steel strike, the General and Municipal Workers Union paid £10·50 a week to its members, whereas the ISTC paid nothing.
Our central proposal is to reduce the benefit paid to a person involved in a strike by £12 a week. This is designed to ensure that all unions face the financial responsibility of the action that they call. This practice is followed in almost every other country than Britain. We are not taking this action in isolation. We are trying to bring the law in Britain into line with that of other countries. The reason is simple. As I said earlier, we are trying to correct a trend which has happened almost by accident.
I quoted John Gennard in Committee. John Gennard has made it clear that when the supplementary benefits legislation was introduced in 1966,
 It was certainly not the intention of the legislators that the Act should deliberately


assist the dependants of those involved in industrial disputes. The amounts paid to strikers' dependants have been a by-product of the system of humanising assistance to those in dire need.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that John Gennard also makes the point in his book that trade union members in the rest of Europe tend not to have to fall back on State benefits, because the benefits provided by their trade unions are sufficient?

Mr. Lester: I am pleased to confirm that. I quoted that passage also in Committee, but I did not wish to take up the time of the House by quoting it tonight.

Mr. Orme: If we quote John Gennard, we should quote him correctly. When he referred to the benefits being paid, he said that he was in favour of the Government making such payments. He said that that was civilised. He also said that in other European countries arrangements were made when families were in need of such payments. Is that not a fact?

Mr. Lester: That is also true, but the salient sentence from Gennard, which I quoted in Committee, is that in other countries those on official strike
 are often receiving financial support from their trade unions at a level which excludes them from public assistance programmes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1980; col. 1029–30.]
That is one of the key points. Another key point is that from 1966 onwards this benefit has been paid almost by accident, and it should not necessarily be seen as of right. As a result of that, the trend has changed. Before the 1966 Act, the National Assistance Board paid out about £75,000 to strikers' families in 1960. In 1967, immediately after the passage of that Act, the figure rose to £337,000. In 1969 the figure was £748,000, and in the 1970s many different amounts were paid out, depending on the action.
In 1971, during the post office workers' strike, the figure reached a peak of £3 million. In 1972, during the miners' strike, the figure was £5½ million. During the miners' strike in 1974 the figure was £4 million and during the recent steel strike the figure was £9 million. A total of £38

million was paid out in benefits from the beginning of the 1970s up until the last strike of steel workers, so one cannot say that this is just a minor matter of a small amount of money. It has involved £38 million, abount half of which would not have been paid if the Bill had been in operation. That is quite a considerable saving.
However, it is not just a question of reversing the financial trend. What we have also seen in the 1970s is the changing nature of strike action. That is why I think we have such wide public support for this measure. What we have seen ½ strike action becoming increasingly a first resort and not a last resort. We have seen strikes actually aimed at the general public. We have seen strikes that have gone on for longer during the 1970s, and 85 per cent. of them have been about pay. Very often the people who have been on strike have been people who were very highly paid anyway and who were striking for more.
This has created a genuine sense of public resentment about taxpayers' money being used to finance strike action that is directly seen to be against their own interests. I think that this is why, in the Gallup poll after the Chancellor's Budget speech, over 69 per cent. of the people were shown to be in favour of this measure. What we are after here is financial responsibility on the part of those who call industrial action.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West suggested that this was the beginning of a confrontation, of people battening down the hatches, of conflict. That is the last thing that we on the Government side of the House want to see. Certainly it is the last thing that my Department wants to see. We want to see employers working together with trade unions. We want to follow the pattern suggested only recently by Sir Michael Edwardes—the pattern of building bridges, of profitable jobs and profitable industry. That is what we seek.
We think that the combination of financial responsibility being transferred back to trade unions and the proper balloting procedures that we hope many unions will adopt in making changes in their rule books—those unions that do not have them already—will mean that the average chap who is involved and is


called upon to strike will have the opportunity to think carefully both of the financial consequences and of the overall consequences of his action. By balloting, we should see a different trend in the 1980s from that which we have seen in the 1970s. That is our earnest hope, and it is the purpose behind what we are trying to do here.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the effects of the clause when the Bill is operative will be that, by putting an onus on trade unions to finance their members, the trade unions and their association with their members will be strengthened? Is that not in the interests of good industrial relations?

Mr. Lester: I hope to come to that matter shortly.
It has been said by both Opposition speakers that this matter involves non-unionists. That is true. I think that the reason for that is that those who are not in unions and who are involved in strike action, whose numbers are very low—only 1 per cent. of days lost, according to our survey of strikes, involved people who were not in unions—do not pay any subscription to a union. Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable that they should make provision for themselves in the event of being involved in strike action.
The same applies to lock-outs and layoffs, where, since 1911, the disqualification rules have covered all employees. In practice, we know that it is very often difficult to discover who is responsible for a lock-out or a lay-off. In any case, the question is almost academic, because only 0·015 per cent. of all workers in the period from 1966 to 1973 were involved in lock-outs.
Therefore, the Government have wisely decided to leave the peripheral questions and make it perfectly straightforward in terms of the involvement of the DHSS.
I am pleased to say that, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Salford, West said, there is some sign of success, because today's edition of The Guardian suggests that at the General and Municipal Workers Union conference it will almost certainly be decided to raise strike pay from £10·50 a week to £16 a week. That is a very encouraging sign, before the Bill is even on the statute book. I

gather from the same article that next month the Transport and General Workers Union will also consider plans to double its strike benefits, from £6 to £12 a week.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Minister wants the trade union movement to take on the burden of paying an amount towards the family of a striker when he is on strike. Will not this be a real rallying cry for any non-unionist to get into the trade union? The non-unionists will be penalised under this legislation. There is no provision in it for them, but the Government are expecting trade unionists to make provision for their families.

Mr. Lester: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he should thank the Government and not criticise them. The moral argument is clear. It is reasonable to expect the trade unions that have called a strike to take a greater proportion of the financial burden. The issue has been widely debated for many years. We made a commitment in our manifesto. There are already signs that the provisions will work. Contrary to the final words of the right hon. Member for Salford, West, we hope that the Bill will create a new trend in the 1980s and that there will be fewer strikes, fewer industrial disputes and a greater and more productive economy.

Mr. David Stoddart: The Under-Secretary of State said that the clause was not vindictive. He could have fooled me. The Bill is vicious. It should be torn up. It should not be put on the statute book. It is part of the Tory Party's declared strategy to shift the balance of power in favour of employers. The Bill will also shift the balance away from justice and in favour of injustice. The Government have selected one group of people—those who go on strike—and have told them that they will be treated differently. No other section of the population will be excluded from receiving a benefit that can keep a family in food, clothing and shelter.

Mr Tony Marlow: Mr Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose— —

Mr. Stoddart: The clause applies only to one group of people.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman spoke of injustice. Is he aware that many people, particularly trade unionists, feel that an injustice is done when a trade


union goes on strike and causes great public inconvenience? The families of those on strike receive social security benefits out of taxes paid by the very trade unionists who are being inconvenienced. We have put up with that feeling of injustice since 1966.

Mr. Stoddart: There are many different types of injustice. Conservative Members presume automatically that it is a striker's fault if he goes on strike and that the strike has nothing to do with the employer. Those who criticise strikers conveniently forget that strikers also pay taxes and national insurance contributions. They are entitled to receive the same benefits as everybody else.
The clause creates an injustice. It applies only to one section of the community. That is a new and abhorrent aspect of social security legislation.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Is it not true that benefits help those who are disadvantaged in some way? All hon. Members will agree that they require such benefits. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that only strikers are disadvantaged?

Mr. Stoddart: I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the House or how long he has been associated with politics and social security. If he had taken any interest in the subject, he would have known that strikers do not receive any benefits. They are not entitled to benefits. In the clause we are discussing the families of strikers. They are the people who are disadvantaged and penalised by the clause. I hope that the hon. Member has learnt something from his intervention.

Mr. Field: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of injustice, will he address himself to the Minister's argument that he cannot understand the Opposition's reaction that the clause is an attack on the trade unions? If the Government are genuine, why did they not accept an Opposition amendment in Committee, to bring in the clause after a time lag? Because of the level of their dues, some trade unions do not have strike funds for this year, next year or the year after. They will need time to build up strike funds. If the Government really

want trade unions to finance their own activities, would not their argument be strengthened by bringing in this proposal after a time lag instead of introducing it this year?

Mr. Stoddart: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Standing Committee and I did not hear all the arguments. Certainly, if the Government were genuine they would have accepted that amendment. I would have thought that at least they would put a little gloss on the clause which would have enabled them to justify it to a greater degree than they have been able to do so far.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That amendment was never moved by the Opposition.

Mr. Rooker: It was guillotined.

Mr. Stoddart: The Secretary of State has the advantage of me. However, I understand that the amendment was affected by the guillotine. If so, there was nothing to stop the Secretary of State from accepting the amendment if he thought it was good. Since he did not support it, it is obvious that he wants to bring in legislation as quickly as possible in order to bash the unions before next winter, which he and his right hon. Friends expect to be a long winter of discontent.
The clause is very one-sided. There is no proposal from the Government to penalise the employer who has clearly caused or provoked a strike, either by bad management or, even worse, because it would advantage his business to do so. If the Secretary of State does not believe that that sort of thing occurs, he should move around industry a little more. Undoubtedly, there are some very good managements in industry throughout the country, but there are also some very bad ones. Bad management forces people out on strike in order to get better pay, conditions and safety measures.
In my constituency there is a famous firm where I have seen people pushed out on strike by the management's failure to put in the most elementary safety measures for the protection of the workers' lives and limbs. Had the Government wanted to be even-handed and just, they would have found a means to ensure that workers who went on strike


in such circumstances, and their families, were not penalised.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman suggests that workers may be forced to strike in his constituency because of inadequate safety precautions. Were those precautions inadequate under the previous Labour Government? What did they do? Are safety regulations not being enforced in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are irrelevant. The issue is not a party political one. There are bad employers under Labour and Conservative Governments. I would not dream of blaming the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister for all the bad management in the country. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may wish that he had not intervened.
We should consider certain figures.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is the hon. Gentleman not missing the point? Will he address himself to the principle? No one would suggest that there are no bad employers or that certain strikes are not justified. However, trade unions and their funds are there to protect their members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those funds should be used to help their members if their families are in difficulty in such circumstances?

Mr. Stoddart: I was coming on to that point. The hon. Gentleman assumes that everyone belongs to a trade union, but of 25 million employees in this country only 12 million are in trade unions. About 13 million are not covered. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches may want to deal with that.
When the minus-£12 clause comes into operation, a striker with a wife and two children will receive £13 05 plus rent. That is to support a family of four. At present, the average sum spent on food is £6 per person per week. That family will be utterly poverty-striken. Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed when he contemplates families living at that level? The Secretary of State for Industry, speaking to the Conservative Party conference in 1973, advised it not to contemplate the public reaction if starving children appeared on television because their families were not receiving adequate supplementary benefit when the wage earner

was on strike. In the recent steel strike, steel workers and their families suffered extreme hardship. Some had to sell their belongings. I understand that one worker committed suicide. Even under the present system there is hardship. That hardship will be greatly exacerbated by the Bill.
The Bill will hit hardest the poorest. The low paid will be especially badly hurt. They are unlikely to have savings. They will have no access to other income. As they will have paid little income tax, they will have no tax rebate. The lower paid are least likely to be in a trade union. Otherwise, they would not be low paid. They will not receive benefit from a trade union. This situation applies particularly in the South-West and in parts of the South-East.
Low-paid workers are often frightened off joining trade unions by employers. That situation still exists. Conservative Members should get around and see what happens. Although the law is against them, there are still employers who threaten their workers with dismissal, by one means or another, if they join trade unions.
These low-paid workers are likely to be hardest hit by the clause. I hope that when the House votes Conservative Members will reconsider their position. This is an unjust clause, a bad clause and a vicious clause. I sincerely hope that the House will throw it out.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There are few countries that pay strikers' families. I am glad that the Government pay social security to strikers' families. I am amazed, however, to hear speeches by Opposition Members indicating that they are not anxious that trade unions should contribute to payments to strikers' families. That seems an extraordinary expression of non-comradely activity by Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made clear what he thought. He believed that the Government should pay. His approach was that the Tory Government were taking money away from strikers' families.
The Government do not have any money to make these payments. As my hon. Friends pointed out in their interventions, those who pay strikers' families are often those affected by the strikes.


They pay out of their taxes and pay also through the extra expense in which, because of the strike, they are sometimes involved in getting to work. I am a moderate in these matters. I believe, however, that the clause is long overdue. It is about time some unions matched up to their rule books. Some rule books state that the union should pay strike pay, but the rule books are disregarded. I recall talking to one trade union leader a year or two ago about the welfare benefits that trade unions paid in the past to their members. I asked why those benefits were not now paid. He replied that there was no point in paying welfare benefits when the State did so.
I believe that trade unions should pay welfare benefits, although I do not press the issue. Any welfare payments made should be over and above what the State provides. I am glad that we have a Welfare State, but the expression of view to which I have referred, about not making welfare payments because the State would do so, is now in danger of being taken further. Some trade union leaders are asking why their unions should pay strike benefit when the State will meet the bill. The country as a whole, including many trade union members, desires that unions should pay their members who go on strike. It may be that individual unions wish the State to pay when they go on strike, but when other unions strike and affect them they ask why the State should always have to pay.
10.30 pm
The right hon. Member for Salford, West brought out the corny argument of prisoners' families who receive full social security. Of course, the family of a prisoner can do nothing about getting him back to work, but the family of a striker can persuade him to return to work. There is nothing to prevent a striker from going back to work, except the trade union that says that he must stay out.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the family of a striker involved in a bitter three or four-week strike should not get the benefit but that if that striker goes on a picket line, gets into a fight with a policeman and is sent to prison his family

should qualify for the benefit Where is the logic in that?

Mr. Lewis: If the man who is involved in violence on a picket line is not the aggressor, he will not go to gaol. There is nothing in that argument.

Mr. Burden: I have received a letter from my constituency stating that a union official went to a company and asked the workers to come out on strike. I have confirmed the details. The workers were almost overwhelmingly against striking, but the official drew from his pocket a letter that he said was a union instruction that unless they stopped work they could be fined or could lose their union cards. If that is not coercion, I do not know what is.

Mr. Lewis: There is no doubt that some strikes are inflicted on workers who do not want to strike. I do not say that it happens every time, but a union that calls a strike cannot object to paying £12 a week to those whom it has asked to go on strike.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman said that it was right that in the case of someone who had committed murder, fraud, larceny or some other serious crime the sins of the father should not be visited on the family, which should receive social security benefit. Does he believe that the family of a non-unionist or a trade unionist who voted against a strike that took place should be penalised and lose £12 a week, while the family of someone who has committed the worst possible crimes should be treated justly?

Mr. Lewis: Society must look after people who are affected by the sins of the fathers or whoever has had to be locked up. A striker is in a different situation. There is no trade union of prisoners to pay any money.
Hon. Gentlemen ask me about those who do not belong to a trade union. Strikes are caused by organisation, and it is not easy to organise when one is not a member of a trade union. It seldom happens that people who are not union members go on strike, but it does happen.
However, I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment got it right when he said that non-union workers did not pay union


dues week by week. Therefore, if they go on strike—they seldom do, and then not for very long—they will have that much more money saved up because they have not been paying trade union dues.
In order to deal with this situation and force the unions to pay £12 a week strike benefit to their members, the Minister was right to include those who do not belong to a union. If that encourages people to join unions, so be it. None of my hon. Friends has ever said that there should not be responsible union membership. We support responsible trade union membership.
I think that when Opposition Members examine their comments tomorrow in the cold light of day they will wonder whether their arguments were meaningful. The truth is that the trade unions are divided into those that pay strike benefit—because it is in the rule book—and those that do not. It is time that they all paid strike benefit, and it is time that those who pay taxes were absolved from subsidising those who go on strike and cause turmoil.

Mr. Race: The arguments that we have heard from Conservative Members have been particularly obnoxious. It is gratifying that this debate is taking place at this time of night, because I notice that the rather inadequate attention given to the Bill by the press during its earlier stages has now almost entirely disappeared. Perhaps the headlines in the press tomorrow morning will not describe the Bill as the Bill about benefits for the families of strikers. Perhaps we shall see a proper description of the Bill. The Opposition hope so.
I address my remarks to comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who said that since the middle 1960s strikes have become longer and are now waged against the community. These points were advanced as arguments in favour of the State's taking a different view about the payment of benefit to the families of strikers. My argument against that is that it is inevitable that strikes in the 1980s will, in many respects, be strikes against the Government. That is because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
This Government now talk about the implementation of a tough wages policy. If they believe that somehow they will

be exempt from industrial action simply because a Conservative Government take that view, they have another think coming. If they try to impose wage settlements around the monetary targets of between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent., with inflation running at 21 per cent. they need hardly be surprised if people resist a wage cut of nearly 10 per cent. I have no doubt that in the next pay round there will be industrial disputes against the Government's wages policy. Indeed, such action was taken against the Labour Government's 5 per cent. pay policy—and quite rightly, too.
My argument is that industrial disputes have not been caused by the so-called largesse of the State to strikers' families. Industrial disputes arise from the objective economic and political situation. They do not arise from the chicken feed——

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Race: In a moment, when I have advanced my argument. Industrial disputes do not arise from the chicken-feed that is given by way of benefits to strikers' families. Therefore, it is erroneous for the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to try to persude Government Back-Bench Members that this measure will reduce the number of industrial disputes. That will not be so. The number of industrial disputes relate to the economic logic of our society and the way in which the bosses' party operates

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly when he is building up steam about his class prejudice argument. He said that strikes take place because people take an objective look at the economic situation. If strike payment is deemed from the unions and is not available from the taxpayer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said, that will be another objective factor at which they can look in the economic situation. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that with the Bill bringing about the changes proposed there would be more and longer strikes, or that the unions and their supporters would consider the situation and say "We do not want to waste our money on a political strike against the duly elected Government"?

Mr. Race: Inevitably, trade unionists will have to take action against employers or Governments on wages, unemployment or whatever. Trade unionists will no doubt take into account the fact that the State has taken these benefits away. It may mean that more industrial disputes will be official disputes from the word "go". Many trade unions, including my own, do not make disputes official until at least the third day of industrial action. Some trade unions may change their rule books to bring official sanction forward to the first day of industrial action. Some union executives may take the view that their rule books should be changed to make every strike official, no matter what the circumstances. That is already the position in one organisation. Therefore, the impact of the clause may be to sanction more official industrial action. I support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) on this matter.
If official industrial action is called, it is usually more difficult to get people back to work, because the disputes procedures have to be followed and official channels have to be gone through. Sometimes it is easier to deal with unofficial action.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not a fact that when people come out on strike they cannot claim anything for two weeks, because often they have two weeks' pay? They draw a week's pay on the Friday before and they have a week in hand to draw the second week. Until a strike has lasted for two weeks, they cannot claim a penny from anywhere. As the majority of strikes do not last two weeks, only one family in eight gets anything out of the benefit. Will not that lead to shorter, more frequent strikes? For example, instead of having a national railway strike, we may have strikes at different stations on different days, probably causing more damage than a national strike.

Mr. Race: That may well be so. The benefits affected by the clause are not automatically given to people. They can be claimed only on the basis of proof of need. That is the point. They are not given to vast numbers of people at the drop of a hat.
One of the arguments that I advanced in Committee about the illogicality of the Government's position was one that Government supporters put forward and that Ministers have stated publicly—that industrial conflict is somehow an outdated form of action. I do not believe that that is so.
I have already referred to the kinds of problem that the Government will run into in the wages round next winter. I do not believe that the Government will be able to get away from that position. They must accept and plan for industrial conflict. The purpose of the clause is to make it less possible for trade unions to take industrial action. Whether it works out in practice is another matter.
Government supporters say that £12 is not very much, but the combined assets of the trade unions—even if they sold their offices, sacked everybody and pooled all their assets—would not finance a national strike of all their members for more than a couple of days. Therefore, the purpose of the deeming clause is to undermine the overall assets of the trade union movement and make it less possible for trade unions to take effective national industrial action on a justified basis.
It is important to contrast the way in which the Government are treating trade unionists with their total lack of concern about irresponsible people. Let us compare the action of someone who is striking for a fair wage for his endeavours with that of someone who wants to push up the interest rates—like those people in the City of London who, in 1976, refused to buy Government gilt-edged stock. Where are the Government proposals to deal with those people and the rip-off that they perpetrate on society?

Mr. Marlow: Fairyland.

Mr. Race: This is not fairyland. The hon. Gentleman may believe it to be so. These are the comparisons that people make. People will read the Bill and say that strikers who are striking for a fair day's wage are being penalised while Conservative Party supporters in the City of London, who export capital and deliberately push up the rate of interest, are given millions of pounds because that is the operation of the free market. The operation of the free market must be restricted—but Conservative Party supporters will not be affected.
The clause is part of the Government's overall objective to change the balance of power between labour and capital, which is still grossly unequal. Shop stewards and trade union officials do not have decision-making powers about companies' investments, pricing policies or investment rates. They do not have the power to sack boards or managing directors.
Conservative Members argue that the measures are required to change the balance of power between labour and capital. That is absolute moonshine. It is a political gimmick to try to blame trade unionists and their families for the problems of our society. It is absolute political nonsense. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), understood that when the Bill was in Committee.
Some Conservative Members know the purpose of the clause and, no doubt, they are pleased with the Government for introducing it. The Government must accept that trade unionists also understand the objectives behind the clause, and they must be prepared to take the consequences next winter.

Mr. Dorant: Earlier in the debate I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I asked him what happened to the funds subscribed by union members. He said that they were used to pay the overheads of the unions. That worries me considerably. If we study the facts and figures about what happens to the money and the investments of trade unions, we find an appalling story. Many unions have invested their money in property in various parts of London. I am not opposed to that. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) talked about the City, and all the ramifications of some sinister plot. The trade unions themselves are major investors in property and also in all the other aspects of the private enterprise market. I do not decry that. It is right for them to do so. But do not let us hear any suggestion that they have put their money into some other area that is specially shielded for their trade union members.
Most ordinary trade unionists have subscribed their money with due faith, week after week, in the honest belief that they will be helped when there is a strike.

They have always believed that. It may be welfare, help for their families or help in some other area, but they have always believed that that was the purpose of their contributions.
Many trade union leaders have had nice holidays in various parts of the country. [Interruption.] I had my holiday in a holiday camp in South Wales, at my own expense. Let us not have any hoo-ha about where we have holidays. Nobody subsidised me. The ordinary trade unionist subscribes his money in the honest belief that his trade union leaders will look after him when the chips are down. I do not blame him for that; it is honest and decent.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that the trade unions could not operate in the way suggested in the Bill because of their overheads and other costs. I must make it clear that the money is subscribed by ordinary members. We have heard a fair amount of sanctimonious talk from Opposition Members about trade unionists. Ordinary trade unionists in Britain pay their dues in the belief that their trade union officials will take an interest in them.
I shall tell the House of my experience as an ordinary Member of Parliament. Whenever I have written to a trade union on behalf of an ordinary individual member, I have got nowhere. If I have written on behalf of 200 members, there has been tremendous action. If that is the background, everyone rushes round to see me. However, if I write, for example, to NALGO or the AUEW on behalf of one member, I have no success. The unions are not interested in the individual member. I am a Conservative because I believe in the individual, not in the block vote or whatever the system may be.
The hon. Member for Wood Green made great play about trade union membership and political strikes. The day of action was a day of inaction, and the reason was simple. It was not a trade union strike; it was a political strike. Ordinary trade union members in my constituency did not participate, because they recognised it as a political strike.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman says that the demonstration on 14 May was a political strike. The people took to the streets because


the media did not recognise the problems of the trade unions and because the causes were the Government's policies. Had it not been for those policies, the events of 14 May would never have taken place.

Mr. Durant: The average trade unionist joins his union and pays his dues—

Mr. Ashton: Not again.

Mr. Durant: —so that his interests will be looked after within the works environment. It is between him and his employer. He is not very interested in the Government. He will decide at the general election whether he favours the previous Government, but he pays his dues with a view to the union looking after him if he finds himself in conflict with his employer. That is what it is about. I accept that my experience is limited, but in my constituency workers pay their union dues so that they will be looked after in any dispute with their employer. Those who take strike action expect their union to help them. In all my experience —and it is limited——

Mr. Ashton: It is.

Mr. Durant: —I have found that unions are interested in political power and not so much in their members. There lies half the trouble facing Britain.

Mr. William Hamilton: The speech of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) reveals the basic Conservative hostility to trade unions. From a time well before the election and ever since, the Conservatives have scarcely been able to contain that hostility. They think that the mass of the public is against the trade unions, and they may be right.
The reason why the clause is in the Bill is different from the reason for the inclusion of the other clauses. It is not designed to cut public expenditure. Clauses 4 and 5 were designed to save £385 million. We are to clobber the sick, the unemployed, the old folk and the disabled to save £385 million. Clause 6, according to the Government's estimates, will save £1 million. It is a reflection on the media that whenever they have referred to the Bill in general they have almost invariably referred to it as the Bill that is seeking to impose penalties

on the wives and families of strikers. All the other clauses have been ignored.
11 pm
Labour Members have tabled an early-day motion congratulating The Guardian on its editorial today. Almost for the first time, a responsible newspaper has put the Bill in perspective.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: No, I must get on.
At best, the clause is not worth a candle. In Committee, the Secretary of State admitted that it would not affect the vast majority of strikes one way or the other. In any case, most strikes are of short duration. Only long strikes will be affected. The Minister for Social Security nods assent. Let me put a scenario to him. I come from a mining community, and strikes in mines are frequent. There are all sorts of local problems in pits. There could be a wet or gassy seam. The men could down tools and stop work for a day or two, but the strike could last longer, and it might eventually be declared official by the union.
As a consequence—I am thinking particularly of Fife, where much of the coal from the Fife mines goes directly to the Longannet power station—the workers at the power station could be laid off though completely innocent. But according to the rough edges of the Bill— I use the Minister's words—the wives and children of those power station workers will have £12——

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin indicated dissent.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify that, because lock-outs are covered by the Bill. The Secretary of State said that in such cases wives and families of workers would be penalised. If he is now saying that the wives and children of those power station workers will not be affected, will he say where that is stated in the clause? If wives and children of the power station workers were penalised, the strike would spread like wildfire. Long strikes would ruin the trade unions, and the unions believe that that is the main purpose of the clause.
One of the constant features of the Conservatives' election campaign was designed—legitimately, from their point of


view—to exploit the irritation and anger of the public that was caused by last winter's strikes. They cashed in on and exploited the unpopularity of the trade unions at that time, and they have been doing so ever since. The Prime Minister can scarcely contain her venom. Whenever she speaks about the trade unions, she can scarcely contain it. She could not do so today at the Conservative women's conference. She and her Right-wing cohorts are behind the thinking on the clause.
One of the most reprehensible features of the clause is that it is assumed that in all cases trade unions are responsible for strikes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must know that that is not true. In many cases the employer is responsible. I give one typical example, which was quoted in the press today. The nurses are incensed by the Government's agreement to award doctors a 32 per cent. increase in salary. The Minister for Health got a roasting by that most gentle organisation, the Royal College of Nursing, which has written into its rules the rule that nurses shall not come out on strike but is now balloting its members for strike action. If that ballot is in favour of strike action, who will be to blame for the strike—the Government or the nurses? [Interruption.] It has very much to do with the amendment. Let me continue the argument.
The great majority of members of the Royal College of Nursing are women. A considerable number are married nurses, with men at home. If such nurses strike and their families claim supplementary benefit, will those nurses have £12 a week deducted from their supplementary benefit under the clause? If so, what will be the result on their morale, and what will be the public's opinion and response towards that situation?
I pose that as a serious possibility. The Royal College of Nursing is not a militant trade union. It is not a trade union at all. The unions are NUPE and COHSE. If the Royal College of Nursing comes out on strike, we may be sure that NUPE and COHSE—I am a sponsored Member of Parliament of COHSE, and there is not a more moderate trade union in the country—will come out on strike for sure if they do not get equality of treatment with the doctors.

If the doctors are worth a 32 per cent, rise, the nurses are worth 32 per cent. If the Govenment then insist on the imposition of the clause, we can imagine what will happen in the NHS throughout.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) talked about men going to prison being different from men who were on strike. Let me pose another scenario. The House will remember that as a result of the Industrial Relations Act of the previous Tory Government, five dockers were sent to prison. If this Bill had been in force then, their families would have had the £12 deducted whilst they were out of prison, but as soon as they went into prison their wives would have got the full supplementary benefit payment. When the Official Solicitor got to work and got them out, the £12 would immediately have been deducted again.
What a lot of nonsense. What a contemptible act. It is simply not worth the candle. But it is the price that the country will have to pay for the venomous attitude of the Tory Party towards the trade union movement.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Opposition speeches have so far been rather exaggerated and bogus. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has just waxed eloquently in indignation at this measure, but I wonder why he did not wax indignant about similar matters in the early years of his membership of this House, when no social security benefit was ever given to strikers' families. Where were Opposition Members then in pursuit of this great fundamental principle of social justice, before it was discovered in the middle 1960s that the relevant sections of the social security legislation could be used to give, for the first time, some sort of social security benefit to strikers' families? One would think that this had been a principle of trade unionism and social security since the inception of those institutions. The fact is that only recently have trade unions thought such benefits necessary. It is to their advantage to exploit the taxpayer instead of paying out of their dues.
One would have thought, from all the venom, that we were taking away all social security benefits. One would have


thought that the poor, weak and feeble were being left to suffer. In other countries, where such provision has never been made, strikers' families suffer. Many people in Britain do not want such social security payments to be made. Understandably, they believe that if social security benefits are given to strikers' families, it will encourage those—[Interruption]—in the trade union movement who act irresponsibly, and who strike without any cause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. It is not right that hon. Members should continually shout from seated positions. They should try their luck at intervening.

Mr. Lawrence: If Opposition Members try to intervene, they will find that their luck is out. The public will be aware that the arguments of those Opposition Members who are seated below the Gangway are at their best ventilated from a sedentary position in their usual "yah boo" way.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley) rose——

Mr. Lawrence: I have already said that I shall not give way.

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Cryer rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Lawrence: If I give way, I would deprive other hon. Members—who may have reasoned and sensible arguments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was too optimistic in my assessment. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Lawrence: Provided that Opposition Members——

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Cryer rose——

Mr. Lawrence: —encourage their trade unions to act responsibly and make payments to strikers' families, those families will not be disadvantaged. If a proper use is made of trade union funds—collected for the purpose of providing benefits to strikers' families—it will be seen that the Opposition's absurd and ridiculous exaggerations were in vain. Opposition Members must act responsibly if trade unions—for which they are spokesmen—are to follow their good example.
It has been said that this measure is vicious, and that it is anti-trade union. The proponents of that argument—including the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart)—then went on to complain that no benefit would go to non trade unionists. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. Either this is an anti-trade union measure, or it is not. The truth is that it is a pro-trade union measure. If non-trade unionists are not going to receive payments of up to £12, many may be encouraged to join a trade union.

Mr. Stoddart: Mr. Stoddart rose——

Mr. Lawrence: I am sorry. I must apply the same treatment to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), to whose speech I listened with interest and amazement, as I applied to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
If those who do not receive £12 suffer, they may be tempted to join trade unions. The more who join trade unions and the more who take part in the sensible, responsible and moderating influence of the mass of the working people, the happier all hon. Members will be. This clause is also pro-trade union in this sense; there are people who disobey the rules of their unions. When the leadership says that a certain matter is not a strike issue, these people go out on strike in defiance of their leaders. Through their militant extremism they go against their leaders democratically expressed wishes.
11.15 pm
If only we could provide some means for the central, democratically-elected organisation of the trade unions to exercise some control over these wildcats we would help to solve some of our industrial relations problems. It seems perfectly reasonable that a Moss Evans should turn to one of the wildcats, tell him that the union is not striking on a particular issue and that if that wildcat goes against the wishes of the union, he will lose his union card, under the closed shop arrangements which this Government, in their generosity are still maintaining. If that is so, the wildcat striker, without his union card, will have to consider seriously whether it is in the interests of his wife and family to lose the first £12 of social security benefit. It may be that if a glimmer of responsibility were ever to return to that wildcat striker, he would go back to the fold of the union, obey the


commands of his leaders, and a strike that would otherwise be utterly disruptive of Britisht industry would not take place. That is substantially why the British people are so much in favour of this legislation.

Mr. Durant: Does my hon. Friend know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who mentioned the nurses, made a speech when his party was in power urging his own Government to pay the nurses an extra £1 a week because they were not prepared to go on strike? He is now inflaming them and urging them to go on strike. It seems as if he has got it all wrong.

Mr. Lawrence: With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will be inflaming too many nurses in this Chamber, and, with any luck, not many nurses will listen to or bother to read what he has said. Of course, that risk always exists, and it is very important that we should recognise that we are the primary organisation in the country for giving an example of responsibility to the unions.
There are two reasons why people go on strike. People voluntarily strike because they have some sort of objective which is a matter of principle, and therefore very important. I have no objection to people striking for their principles. I have no objection to their making sacrifices for their principles. But is it ever right for those people to expect others to make the sacrifices for them? Why should I make a sacrifice for the principle of a man who is about to strike? I have no wish to make a sacrifice for him. If he is true to his principles he must be true to his desire to make the sacrifice himself. Therefore, people who wish to adhere to their principles should be responsible enough to make their own sacrifices. Therefore, it follows that if strikers with the support of their union strike on principle, the trade unions should be prepared to make part of the sacrifice for them. I would go further, and say that they should make the whole sacrifice, but I appreciate that the Government are moderate, sensible, balanced and restrained. Therefore I shall support them.
The other alternative is when people do not strike voluntarily. Some people are forced to strike. Some workers tell

even Conservative Members of Parliament that, although they have been trade unionists all their lives, they do not like what is happening. They are being forced to strike against their wishes. When the trade unions decided that there should be a voluntary show of feeling against the Government, they organised a day of action. A leading trade unionist in my constituency said that the response on 14 May would be so overwhelming that he would not know where to put all the people. On 14 May no one turned up at Burton town hall at 10 am to join the march. Trade union leaders claim a great understanding of and close relationship with the people who they represent. I question whether that is always so.
A bus driver in my constituency asked me on the telephone what he should do, as he wanted to work on 14 May, as did other drivers. He told me that the Transport and General Workers Union representative at the bus depot had said that, if anybody turned up for work, they would lose their union card and job. I hazard a guess that many who joined the day of action were forced to do so by threats to their livelihood.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Name them. Name the branch.

Mr. Lawrence: This matter will not be allowed to rest in my constituency. People will be named in the appropriate quarters. I shall be naming them to people more influential and useful than the hon. Gentleman is likely to be in this matter.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman. He is not following clause 6. He is filibustering and wasting valuable time. Other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is filibustering, but I was hoping that he would come to the question whether strikers should be paid. That is what we are debating. I remind the House that the Front Bench is hoping to start winding up at 11.40 pm, which leaves only 15 minutes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we


would proceed more quickly if the hon. Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Keighley (Mr. Cryer) did not constantly and loudly interrupt.

Mr. Lawrence: I am flattered that the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is leading for the Opposition, thinks so much of my argument that he finds it necessary to take a point of order against me.
Where people are forced by their union to strike against their wishes, is it not eminently just that the union should pay for at any rate some part, of the consequences of that strike? I believe that the overwhelming majority in this country believes that the trade unions should in those circumstances pay at least £12 towards the social security benefit that would otherwise be available.
Apart from the blatant fairness of making the trade unions pay something, there is good constructive sense in the measure. First, if we increase the responsibility of trade unions by making them have some obligation to pay some money out of their funds, obviously they will think twice about striking. Not all strikes are sensible. That is accepted even by strikers at the end of some of these long, unfortunate strikes. Even the strikers' leaders say that, perhaps, it would have been more sensible if they had not gone on strike. Anything which causes trade unions to think twice before they engage upon a prolonged strike is to the benefit of society.
Secondly, the clause is constructive because it strengthens trade unionism. More people will join the unions and will want to centralise the democratic power and control upon the correct leaders. [Interruption.] I am sorry that this sensible, balanced, wise and restrained measure should strike this Pavo-lovian response in hon. Gentlemen. If they rage without reason, if they bellow from the Bench below the Gangway opposite or rise to a point of order merely to interrupt a speech, anyone who reads the debate will know that there is something that they feel in conscience is wrong with their argument. A nerve has been touched at the point at which it causes pain, and that helps to show, as it ought to, the arguments presented by the Government in a moderate and sensible light.
At a time when we should all be agreeing, in the House and in industry, about the methods of getting the country back on its feet it is saddening to see hon. Gentlemen raging with righteous indignation about a matter which is as relatively harmless and as sensible as this one. If we want to get rid of this attitude of confrontation and unreasonableness shown by hon. Gentlemen, this is a good opportunity for them to think, in quietness and with a certain amount of restraint, of the positive, constructive, sensible and just measure which we are asking the House to pass.

Mr. Eastham: I appreciate the opportunity to speak, after waiting for so many hours. After listening to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am lost for words to describe his contribution. He would certainly never serve me in the courts if that is the kind of contribution he would make. It is noticeable that this clause has created such gusto and enthusiasm among the Conservative Benches, as it did in Committee.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that we debated, for about 80 hours, the various clauses in the Bill. It was only on the final clause that Conservative Members came to life. Obviously, this clause is an act of vengeance, not against the strikers, but against their wives and children. The strikers are exercising their democratic right. The Conservative Party realised that it could not suppress the strikers and decided to take it out of the children.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Will my hon. Friend accept that one reason why the hon. Gentleman to whom he refers is never seen in Committee is that he is too busy in the mornings making money in his other profession?

Mr. Eastham: No reference seems to be made by the Conservatives to bad employers. I have posed the question several times in Committee about penalties for bad employers.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Time is being wasted.

Mr. Eastham: It is often bad employers who create strikes. They pay no penalties but cause expense when families have to claim social security. I asked the Minister what he proposed to do about this situation but he chose to ignore the point. I repeat it now. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I quoted the experience in the engineering industry in the Manchester area in 1972 when no less than 36,000 workers were locked out by the employers. The employers were not honouring a national agreement. One would have thought that, in a Bill dealing with strikers, the Government would also have taken the opportunity to attend to employers.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eastham: It is well known that the CBI has been seeking the measures contained in the Bill since 1965. It wants this kind of legislation to suppress strikers. Conservative Members stated in Committee that they were not opposed to trade unions. One hon. Member stated that he did not believe that the unions had too much power. When the Conservative Party conference is shown on television, Conservatives are seen yelling and calling for blood and demanding that organised labour should be smashed.
I am confident that the trade unions, regardless of the measures that the Conservative Government introduce, will cops with the Government. The Government, in the end, will need the co-operation of the trade unions. It was interesting to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he is ready at any time to have talks with the unions. There was no consultation on this legislation. That has been a constant theme during consideration on the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will give way.

Mr. Eastham: It is well known that good employers do not seek this legislation. They do not seek to use the stick. I say now to the Government that there is still time for them to reconsider this matter if they want to avoid a bloody confrontation with the unions.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a reputation in the House for trying to confine my remarks

to 10 minutes. I am aware that the Front Bench spokesmen are due to rise shortly.
I intervene because this matter was discussed at considerable length in my constituency earlier this year, when many thousands of my constituents—members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—were on strike, the overwhelming majority of them against their will. Their will was never tested, although many individual members of the union asked for their will to be tested.
Be that as it may, the strike started on 2 January and lasted until the beginning of April. Labour Members made the point earlier—they almost challenged my hon. Friends on it—that the reason why we are putting forward this proposal to deem strikers' benefit is that we want to bring strikes to a conclusion more quickly. All right—let me deal with that argument head on. I ask the House to consider the situation which obtained round about the middle of February when a clear offer was on the table from the British Steel Corporation which amounted to about 14·4 per cent. If the union had been responsible for paying its members, it would have thought very long and hard about keeping its members out on strike from the middle of February until the beginning of April for an extra 1 per cent. The hardship that was inflicted as a result of the prolonging of that strike was considerable, notwithstanding the fact that at that time benefits for strikers' families were being paid.—[interruption,] An hon. Member alleges that I know nothing about this subject. I doubt whether he would have liked to deal with the literally hundreds of strikers who came to my surgery during that period. They were on strike against their will. They pressed me——

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way when I had not asked him to give way. Does he agree that if social security benefit had not been payable to the families of strikers the strike would not have lasted anything like as long and the loss to the nation would have been nothing like as great?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has made the crucial point which we have been trying to make and have made successfully from these Benches. As he has


rightly stated, the steel strike would have ended far more quickly and the steel workers would have lost far less money. Heaven knows, the nation lost about £1,500 million during the steel strike.—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has some excellent views on this matter.
The crucial point about the clause is the need to ensure that strikes do not go on for an undue time and cause unnecessary hardship to strikers and their families. There is no doubt that the view of the overwhelming majority of people in the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation who were on strike against their will was that, if their union had been responsible for paying them a sum of money, the strike would have ended much sooner. The Transport and General Workers Union paid strike benefit to its members. The General and Municipal Workers Union made, in my view, a very fair contribution to its members. The hard feelings that existed within the unions involved in the steel strike in my constituency were engendered because the ISTC was bailed out by the Exchequer. Some unions made payments to their members in good faith, yet they find that they are at a disadvantage.—[Interruption.] I have to raise my voice to make it carry over the noise being caused by Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not being fair. Some hon. Members have been trying for hours to take part in the debate, and others have come in and are not allowing them to speak. It is very unfair.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that if my constituents hear of how the debate has been conducted in the past few minutes they will realise that Labour Members and their party have been unfair to trade unionists who have been on strike against their will.
The crux of the debate is that the head of the household should be responsible for the consequences to his family of his actions. Labour Members have challenged that premise. Surely the head of a household should be responsible for his family and for paying fot the hardship that is caused by his union.
As ever, time is against me and I fear that enemy far more than I fear Labour Members. I am anxious to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. I fully support the clause. It is crucial to the Government's strategy to reduce the number of industrial disputes and I believe that it has the support of the overwhelming majority of trade unionists.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It falls to me to reply in the few remaining minutes to the points that have been raised since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment spelt out clearly and quietly the case for clause 6.
The hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that, even if it was right to expect unions to bear a larger share of the support of strikers and their families, it would be fair to give longer notice to the unions so that they could build up their funds and be enabled to bear the burden.
It is fair to point out that the Government's intentions were signalled clearly in the manifesto on which we fought the election last year. We made clear that we would be reviewing the entitlement of strikers to benefits for their families, with the intention that unions should bear a larger share of supporting them. The clause will not come into effect until much later this year and unions will have not less than 18 months in which to build up funds to take on the additional responsibility which, as many of my hon. Friends have said, the public expect them to take on.
What will be the effect of the clause? My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) stated clearly that disputes often hit at the public, yet the public have been expected—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the Liberal Party has no interest in the debate, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) to read the paper to find out the racing results? If he has the results, perhaps he could tell the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I did not see the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) reading a newspaper.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford made the point that, increasingly, many of the strikes are aimed at the public. It is that which causes the public such indignation when they find that, through the social security system, they are supporting strikers and their families.
I do not think it fair to draw the rigid distinction drawn by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) between the support given to strikers and that given to their families. Of course benefit is paid for the family, but it is idle to pretend that the striker does not derive some benefit from that payment. It helps to keep him going during a strike.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he accept that the total savings effected by this Bill and the previous Bill amount to about £560 million a year? How much do the Government expect to save by this measure on benefits to strikers?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a difficult question to answer. The amount that was paid out in the steel strike, for instance, was over £9 million. It is estimated that if this clause had been in operation the amount paid out to the steel strikers would have been about £4½ million. The point is that savings are not the primary objective here. The primary objective is to achieve better balance and a sharing of the responsibility among the trade unions, the public and the individuals concerned.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) suggested that the effect of this provision would be to make more strikes official because many strikes at present are unofficial. That view is not shared by the expert labour reporter of The Guardian, Keith Harper, who in an article yesterday said this of the Transport and General Workers Union:
 The union is keeping a close watch on how strikes occur. In future, it may adopt a more cautious attitude towards giving official backing to strikes although unofficial action would not prevent the Department of Health and Social Security from docking £12 from strikers' families.
That union clearly takes the view that the fact that it will have to pay more—and the extent of plans to improve strike pay has been mentioned—will lead the union to have fewer official strikes. In

those circumstances the judgment of the hon. Member for Wood Green is not borne out by the facts.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) gave the example of the miners in his constituency who might be on strike with that strike eventually leading to the laying off of power workers at the Longannet power station. The rules that will be applied in these circumstances are exactly the same as those that entitle people to unemployment benefit. In those circumstances the power workers would be entitled to unemployment benefit because they would not have an interest in the outcome of the miners strike. They would have been laid off because of a strike in the outcome of which they had no interest and would be entitled to unemployment benefit. The question of supplementary benefit would not arise.
Hon Gentlemen mentioned the nurses. I invite them to study the amendment which has been tabled to the early-day motion which will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. That makes it clear that, in relation to the doctors' settlement, if we look at the two-year catching-up period which both doctors and nurses have enjoyed—and rightly so—the percentage increase for them is almost identical, assuming that the nurses settle at 14 per cent. The argument that the nurses are being grossly discriminated against does not stand up. There would be no question of their having to go on strike under this clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made the sound point that claims for supplementary benefit before 1966 were almost negligible. The change in the law in that year unintentionally brought about the result that, increasingly, trade unions found that their members were entitled to supplementary benefit. My hon. Friend asked: where was the pressure before that to get the benefit? The answer is that there was none. Therefore, the argument that it is an inalienable right that strikers' families should be entitled to supplementary benefit is bunkum. That was not intended by Parliament when the 1966 Act was passed. It has grown up largely inadvertently and unintentionally and it is time that it was changed.
All the surveys show that public opinion is overwhelmingly behind this change by two or three to one. Indeed, the public take the view that this change is long overdue. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the amendment and to support clause 6 when the Division is called.

Division No. 323]
AYES
[11.51 pm


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Adams, Allen
Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Allaun, Frank
Field, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Alton, David
Fitch, Alan
McKelvey, William


Anderson, Donald
Fitt, Gerard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McWilliam, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettlts'n)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Crement
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maxton, John


Bldwell, Sydney
George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Bradford, Rev. R.
Graham, Ted
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hardy, Peter
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wylhenshawe)


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openehaw)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Campbell, Ian
Haynes, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
O'Neill, Martin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cartwright, John
Homewood, William
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Horam, John
Park, George


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Rt hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint
Penhallgon, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Huckfield, Les
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Conland, Bernard
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Race, Reg


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Hon Greville
Radice, Giles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Jo


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davles, lfor (Gower)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davles, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James
Sever, John


Dormand, Jack
Leadbltter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Litherland, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dermis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Eastham, Ken
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Snape, Peter


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Soley, Clive


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McCusker, H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, loan (Abordare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Orme: As my right hon. and hon. Friends want to vote against this iniquitous clause and Third Reading, perhaps we may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 290.

Steel, Rt Hon David
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stoddart, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James
Woolmer, Kenneth


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Welsh, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip
Young, David (Bolton East)


Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Whitlock, William



Tilley, John
Wigley, Dafydd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Torney, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Altken, Jonathan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Timothy
Lawrence, Ivan


Allson, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Lee, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Ancram, Michael
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Arnold, Tom
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Banks, Robert
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fletcher-Cook, Charles
McCrindle, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Best, Kelth
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Bevan, David Gllroy
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Blackburn, John
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Major, John


Blaker, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marlow, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray


Bright, Graham
Gray, Hamish
Mawhlnney, Dr Brian


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Mellor, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Grylls, Michael
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mlscampbell, Norman


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Hector


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Kaselhurst, Alan
Moore, John


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint


Butcher, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Buller, Hon Adam
Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Myles, David


Channon, Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Needham, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Nelson, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Hooson, Tom
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Newton, Tony


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Sir Welter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Osborn, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Crouch, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kimball, Marcus
Patlle, Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pawsey, James


Dover, Denshore
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Sir Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lamont, Norman
Pollock, Alexander


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian
Porter, George







Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Veughan, Dr Gerard


Prior, Rt Hon James
Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Speller, Tony
Waddington, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Sproat, lain
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Renton, Tim
Squire, Robin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhodes James, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stanley, John
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Williams, Deiwyn (Montgomery)


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Thornton, Malcolm



Shersby, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after midnight, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 May] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Division No. 324
AYES
[12.03 am


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John
Fox, Marcus


Altken, Jonathan
Buller, Hon Adam
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford a St)


Alexander, Richard
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Allson, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fry, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Ancram, Michael
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Channon, Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Aspinwal!, Jack
Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gow, Ian


Bell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Sir Watter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cope, John
Gray, Hamish


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Cormack, Patrick
Greenway, Harry


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Corrie, John
Grieve, Fercy


Best, Kelth
Coslain, A. P.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Critchley, Julian
Grist, Ian


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Bigge-Devison, John
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gummer, John Selwyn


Blackburn, John
Dorrell, Stephen
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body. Richard
Dover, Denshore
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bright, Graham
Elliott, Sir William
Heddie, John


Fairgrleve, Russell
Brlnton, Tim
Henderson, Barry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brotherton, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom


Sruce-Gardyne, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Budgen, Nick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Sutmer, Esmond
Forman, Nigel
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Hurd, Hon Douglas

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 239.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Speed, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher
Spence, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Myles, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Needham, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Kimball, Marcus
Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, lain


Kilson, Sir Timothy
Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Knight, Mrs Jill
Newton, Tony
Stalnton, Keith


Lamont, Norman
Nott, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, lan
Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Oppenheim, RI Hon Mrs Sally
Steen, Anthony


Latham, Michael
Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Lawson, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Lee, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stokes, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Patton, John (Oxford)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pawsey, James
Tebblt, Norman


Loveridge, John
Percival, Sir lan
Temple-Morris, Peler


Luce, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Lyell, Nicholas
Pollock, Alexander
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


McCrindle, Robert
Porter, George
Thornton, Malcolm


Macfarlane, Neil
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


MacGregor, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Prior, Rt Hon James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macmiilan Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Vlggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Raison, Timothy
Waddington, David


McQuarrie, Albert
Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, John


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Major, John
Renton, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Marland, Paul
Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Marlow, Tony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Mates, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm
Ward, John


Mather, Carol
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Watson, John


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Weils, John (Maidstone)


Mawhlrmey, Dr Brian
Rossi, Hugh
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rost, Peter
Wheeler, John


Manor, David
Royle, Sir Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Monro, Heclor
Shersby, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Montgomery, Fergus
Silvester, Fred



Moore, John
Sims, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Mr. Anthony Berry.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen
Cant, R. B.
Dormand, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Eastham, Ken


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cook, Robin F.
English, Michael


Belth, A. J.
Cowans, Harry
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn. Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Faulds, Andrew


Sooth, Ri Hon Albert
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Field, Frank


Bradford, Rev. R
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Fitch, Alan


Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam
Fit!, Gerard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Ford, Ben


Buchan, Norman
Denkins, Eric
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Campbell, lan
Dempsey, James
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Donald
Freud, Clement







Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McDonald, Or Oonagh
Ryman, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mcohone Frank
Sandelson, Neville


George, Bruce
McGuIr", Michael (Ince)
Sever, John


Ginsburg, David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNamara, Kevin
Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hardy, Peter
McWilllam, John
Silverman, Julius


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Soley, Clive


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Spearing, Nigel


Heller, Eric S.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Maxton, John
Stallard, A. W.


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Maynard, Mita Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Homewood, William
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stoddard, David


Hooley, Frank
Millan. Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Straw, Jack


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Summerskill, Hon Or Shirley


Howells, Geraint
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Huckfield, Lea
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hudson Davles, Gwilym Ednyled
Morris, Rt Hon Charlea (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morton, George
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Moyie. Rt Hon Roland
Tilley, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Janner, Hon Greville
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


John, Brynmor
O'Neill, Martin
Walnwrlght, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Neill, Martin
Watkins, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Michael


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Park, George
White, Frank R. (Bury £ Redcliffe)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillips


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Penhaiigon, David
Whitelock, William


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lambie, David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Willams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lamond, James
Lewis, Arthur (Newham Norh West)
Willson, Gordon (Durdee East)


Leadbitter, Ted
Race, Reg
Willson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huoton)


Leighton, Ronald
Radice, Giles
Willson, Willam (Coventry E)


Leator, Miss Joan (Eton £ Slough)
Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Lewis, Arthur (Newham Norh West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Roberts
Woodall Alec


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Wrigglesworth, lan


Litherland, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright, Sheila


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton East)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William



Lyons, Edwerd (Bradford West)
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Mr. James Tinn and


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Ted Graham.


McCusker, H.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That the Standing Order of 5 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration be amended, by leaving out Miss Joan Maynard and inserting Mr. Frank Haynes.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

PETITIONS

High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I beg leave to present a petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ask that you direct the Clerk at the Table to read it.

The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Alan John Dale, a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, sheweth:

1. That the Petitioner is the solicitor representing the Reverend Elsie Dorothea Chamberlain, John Bernard Wilcox, the Reverend Neville Folland Rees and the Reverend Edward Stanley Guest.

2. That proceedings pending in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice against (among others) the said Reverend Elsie Dorothea Chamberlain, John Bernard Wilcox, the Reverend Neville Folland Rees and the Reverend Edward Stanley Guest have been instituted by the Yorkshire Congregational Union (Incorporated), the case number being 1979 Y No. 476.

3. That the Plaintiffs seek determination of legal issues affecting the Trusts of the Charity consisting of proceeds of sale of the Independent Chapel, Albion Street, Kingston-upon-Hull in the administrative county of Humberside following the passase of the United Reformed Church Act 1972.

4. That the United Reformed Church Bill was referred to a Committee which heard evidence on 23 and 24 May 1972 and was considered by your honourable House on 22 June 1972 (House of Commons Debates 839 cols. 629–72).

5. That the Minutes of Evidence of the above hearing and the Report of Debate printed as aforesaid relate directly to the issues referred to in paragraph 3 hereof, and reference is desired to be made by your Petitioner in the proceedings referred to in

paragraph 2 hereof to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate.

Wherefore your Petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House will be pleased to give leave for reference to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate and for the proper officers of your House to attend the said proceedings and formally to produce and to prove the same according to their competence.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

Alan John Bale,

Ordered,

That leave be given for references to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and Report of Debate and for the proper Officers of this House to attend the said proceedings and formally to produce and to prove the same according to their competence.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Rampton Hospital

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I have the honour and the privilege to present a petition, a similar one to which has attracted 50,000 signatures. I should like to pay tribute to Mrs. Judy Woods and Miss Jacquie Boucherat for the conscientious dedication to this cause and the enormous amount of work they have put in in organising this petition and collecting the signatures. The petition is as follows:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth that there is deep concern at current practices at Rampton Hospital;
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will do all in its power toil) ensure that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 should no longer apply to—
(1) ensure that local authorities and local hospitals accept their responsibilities for patients at Rampton Hospital who have been declared fit for transfer or discharge and who no longer require the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital.
(2) effect the transfer of severely subnormal patients from the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital;
(3) facilitate the increase in the number of nursing staff at Rampton Hospital possessing the qualification in psychiatric nursing of Registered Mental Nurse, and in the number of senior nurses appointed from other hospitals; 
(4) enable allegations of ill-treatment at Rampton Hospital to be independently investigated rather than, as at present, by Rampton Hospital Staff;
(5) effect the implementation of the recommendations of the Elliot Report (1973) for improving the functioning of the hospital; and


(6) ensure that local authorities and local hospitals accept their responsibilities for patients at Rampton Hospital who have been declared fit for transfer or discharge and who no longer require the maximum security conditions of Rampton Hospital.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Rampton hospital is in my constituency. Two investigations are taking place. One of those investigations has been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, is not the matter sub judice? Surely it is out of order to bring a petition at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I did not hear anything this evening that could be considered sub judice.

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Director of Public Prosecutions is investigating the allegations made in the petition. The Nottinghamshire police have taken almost a year to investigate those allegations. The papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would therefore be wrong if the House were to accept the petition.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that I would present this petition, which concerns the special hospital in his constituency. He is wrong to suggest that the matters in the petition are sub judice. He is correct to say that there is a police and a departmental investigation in progress. There is a reference to the latter in the petition. However, the petition concerns allegations that have been made since then—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need proceed. The petition has been duly presented. It may be deposited.

To lie upon the Table,

Mr. John Blackburn: Mr. John Blackburn (Dudley, West) rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now finished with that subject.

SHEFFIELD (HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Frank Hooley: In the first year of office of the Labour Government of 1974 to 1975, public expenditure on housing, at 1979 prices, was just over £7 billion. In the current financial year, that has been reduced to £4·7 billion. By 1983–84, public expenditure on housing will have been slashed to £2.8 billion.
It is little wonder, then, that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities recently wrote a letter stating:
 Housing has been cancelled for the next three years.
Those global figures do not make much impact on most folk until they are translated into what is happening at the grass roots level in towns and cities. I shall, therefore, refer to the position of Sheffield. The housing investment programme covers not only council house building but also slum clearance, council house modernisation, improvement grants, home insulation grants, mortgages, general improvement areas, housing action areas, acquisition of land, professional fees and many smaller, technical matters that must be met from the local allocation.
The allocation for Sheffield in 1980–81 is £21,185,000. Last year, the city spent £24·5 million. Allowing for inflation, that is equivalent in 1980 to about £28 million. In real terms, there has been a cut of 25 per cent. in the HIP. As Sheffield is a dynamic and go-ahead housing authority, it asked for £44 million. It has, therefore, suffered a cut of 50 per cent. If the figure of £24·5 million is adjusted for a rate of inflation of about 21 per cent.—it may be higher than that later in the year—it represents a cut of 25 per cent. That is serious.
What is the effect of those cuts on the building programme? I shall consider what Sheffield hopes to do this year and what it will be able to do on its reduced allocation. Virtually all the money will be swallowed up by existing commitments. There are a fair number of houses under construction and in the pipeline. Those


houses have to be financed. Sheffield had hoped to start nearly 900 new homes in 1981. This has had to be cut to 100 because only £533,000 is available for new stocks.
Of course, that will have a considerable impact on the housing problems of Sheffield. It will delay tackling the formidable difficulty of providing specially designed new flats, homes and sheltered accommodation for the elderly. The problem of housing the elderly is growing in Sheffield as it is in the country generally. Incidentally, this has a "knock on" effect, because it is not possible to move elderly folk from the unsuitable housing that they now occupy and provide them with specially designed flats. The pressure is then put on the geriatric services and the geriatric wards of hospitals, and this is an extremely expensive way of caring for the elderly. The pressure on public funds may be more than it would have been had there been a reasonable allocation for new buildings in the first place.
There are also the consequences for employment. The Sheffield housing chairman has quoted figures of between 1,000 and 2,000 people who have been made unemployed as a consequence of the reduction in the housing programme. By no means all these are local authority employed. Private contractors are given a fair opportunity to take part in the housing programme in Sheffield, and about 350 workers in various categories and grades could be without work as a result of the ferocious reductions in the new building programme in the current financial year.
Then there is the problem of modernisation. Sheffield has an excellent record of council house building and there are many magnificent estates. In my constituency, the Gleadless Valley estate is widely acclaimed as the finest in Europe. Estates built in the late 1920s and early 1930s are now 50 years old, and even the post-war estates are 25 to 30 years old. At the time they were built, they were clearly outstanding and of much higher quality than the slums and derelict properties that they replaced. But naturally, as a result of the passage of time, they have fallen behind what people expect in the last two decades of the twentieth century.
Thus, a programme of modernisation is necessary and desirable, and Sheffield

has set a target of 2,000 homes a year for modernisation. However, owing to the cuts in the housing investment programme in the current year, a programme to modernise 1,200 pre-war homes has been cut to 800 and a programme for 400 post-war houses has been abandoned altogether. Therefore, 800 families who might reasonably have expected their homes to be modernised this year will be disappointed. If national figures go the way that the public expenditure White Paper has indicated, that disappointment may extend over many years.
The problem does not apply only to the public sector. In Sheffield there are about 53,000 pre-1919 houses. These need improving and modernising even more than some of the older council estates. Of the current allocation, £1,250,000 will be taken up by improvement grants that are already firmly promised, which leaves very little money for new commitments to improvement grants for residents in privately rented houses. It was hoped that there would be 1,000 new improvements during the current financial year. That number will now have to be drastically cut back. Like the council tenants who have been hoping to have their dwellings modernised, many families in privately rented older houses, some dating back to before the First World War, will be disappointed. As the housing programme is progressively cut year after year by the Government, that disappointment will extend further into the uncertain future.
The same problem arises with regard to mortgages and loans for improvements. Sheffield has been giving about 15 mortgages a week over the past year or so and hoped to increase that figure to 20 a week. People who would have otherwise not had the opportunity would thereby have been able to own their own homes. I believed that home ownership was a key feature of this Government's housing programme. However, the chairman of the housing committee estimates that loans will drop to only one a week under the housing investment programme.
Perhaps the most astonishing feature of the allocation is with regard to energy saving. The Government announced not long ago that the scheme of insulation would be extended to public sector housing. Insulation saves the home owner


or occupier money and saves the nation fuel. Having announced their generosity, the Government then cut the money available to Sheffield—and doubtless other authorities have suffered similarly—from £300,000 to £145,000 in the current year, which is a reduction of over 50 per cent.
Sheffield had ambitious schemes for energy conservation and planned to spend about £600,000 in the current year on that aspect of housing policy. It is now likely to have a miserable £20,000 for that programme. It had planned loft insulation schemes for 2,800 houses and other schemes for electrically heated maisonette and high tower blocks. Those schemes have more or less to be abandoned because the financial resources will not be available.
The Government have taken deliberate action to force up the price of gas and electricity way beyond what is required to cover the revenue accounts of those nationalised industries. They have a deliberate policy of recouping from these public corporations large sums of money that will go to the Treasury. It could be argued that that is one way of urging the need for conservation. However, those on low incomes, and particularly old people, are put under enormous pressure because of fuel bills. The Government then, through cuts in authorised expenditure on housing, force authorities such as Sheffield drastically to reduce or abandon ambitious, far-reaching and sensible plans for insulation to cope with the special problems of all-electric blocks built 10, 15 or 20 years ago—long before the oil crisis.
By any standards, this is sheer economic lunacy. This is a severe cutback in what Sheffield hoped for and asked for in its housing programme. Even if the Minister says that Sheffield's claim for £44 million was beyond what was reasonable, we are still faced with the fact that, whereas last year Sheffield expended £24½ million—about £28 million at current prices—that amount is being cut by one-quarter. The severe cutback in new housing puts jobs at risk and postpones the day when many people can expect a decent, suitable home. There will be long waiting lists and more people will be dumped in the geriatric wards of hospitals.
The cut in modernisation and improvement will reduce the council's ability to deal with the substantial problems of modernisation and disrepair. The cut in mortgage funds will affect those at the lower end of the housing market.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister. It may be that other authorities in the country, not as ambitious, vigorous and dynamic as Sheffield in housing, will find that their housing investment programmes are more than they require, by perhaps £1 million here or there. If that is so, I hope that it will be possible, within the fixed total of housing expenditure, for a reallocation of that money to be made to deal with some of the problems of modernisation, energy conservation and new building which now face Sheffield as a result of financial constraints.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I was interested to hear the points put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about the problems Sheffield is experiencing. He has put the case, as put to him by his local authority, very fully.
It is necessary for me to make crystal clear one thing about HIP allocations which is all too often forgotten. They have nothing to do with subsidy, grant or aid. They are concerned strictly with resources. So, given the level of resources available, it is the means of dividing the national total between the 367 individual housing authorities that we have to look at. An authority's HIP allocation is the amount it may spend on housing investment in a given year.
The determination of these allocations is carried out in two stages. First, there is the national total which is divided between the regions. The regional allocations are then, in turn, shared out between the individual authorities. At both stages, account is taken of a number of factors, including evidence of housing needs, as set out in HIP applications. In addition, special attention is paid to the specific needs of certain inner city areas, Sheffield being one of these. We look at the size of authorities' bids for resources and authorities' estimates of the extent to which expenditure for the following year is already likely to be committed by the time the allocation is received.
Regional offices of the Department also take into account the policies proposed by an authority in its local housing strategy, the relationship of these to national policies and the extent to which the authority has made use of the alloca-cations given it in previous years. I shall return to that in a moment. In making allocations for 1980–81, we took what account we could of authorities' existing commitments, on the basis of the estimates supplied to us by the authorities with their HIP returns.
I believe on that basis that the allocations both to the Yorkshire and Humber-side region as a whole, which, in fact, received a slightly greater proportion of the national total than in 1979–80, and to Sheffield in particular were as fair as we could make them. We also noted that Sheffield was unable to spend about 20 per cent., or £7 million, of its provisional 1979–80 allocation.
Having set the scene generally, I turn to the particular case of Sheffield, which, I am told, now says that existing commitments on their own are almost as much as the total sum it will be allowed to spend in 1980–81. This must be because the current estimate of commitments is substantially in excess of the figure the council gave my Department in September 1979. The commitment figure conveyed to us by the city of Sheffield at that time was £10,225,000, which was very much less than the 1980–81 allocation of about £21 million, plus £145,000 for the homes insulation scheme.
Sheffield now says that its commitment figure is in excess of £20 million, an amazing 100 per cent. leap upwards in a short period of time, with no explanation, and that, due to its high commitment figure, the allocation allows insufficient flexibility to implement any of the objectives given in the letter conveying the 1980–81 HIP allocations, which we sent to all authorities on 21 February.
Under the one-block system which we introduced for 1980–81, local authorities are given more freedom to decide what investment will best suit their areas. I made it clear that it is Sheffield's choice whether it spends its allocation on improvements, modernisation or new house building.
Apart from that factor, Sheffield in any case is not the only authority which, for

one reason or another, believes that its allocation will be insufficient. I must make clear that there is no prospect of help of any kind. There are no additional funds in reserve for 1980–81, and the entirety of the available resources has already been distributed. I make the point however, that the more council houses and flats Sheffield sells, the more capital receipts it will have to supplement its HIP in 1981–82 and onwards.
Where does Sheffield city council go from here? I am afraid that it will have to face up to the realities of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 21 February in which he said that the Government were faced with the task of setting public expenditure at levels which the nation could afford. This means that Sheffield will have to adapt to the reduced provision for public expenditure overall arising from the Government's review and the new spending priorities within that provision. This will inevitably mean that authorities such as Sheffield will be unable to proceed with some planned schemes. The Government's present policy is to concentrate the public sector effort on meeting particular local needs such as for the elderly and the handicapped and to make better use of existing stock. The encouragement of home ownership and the private rented sector are important features of the policy.
But, in reassessing its programme and priorities within the new allocation for 1980–81, and the likely level for the following years, there is much that Sheffield can do to help itself if it wants. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made a comprehensive statement in his address to the Institute of Housing seminar on 24 April, a copy of which has been sent to Sheffield's housing department. In that, he not only set out initiatives that local authorities could take in further promoting low-cost home ownership but also explained that by so doing they would incur only small or, in some cases, a nil call on their HIP allocations.
The seven-point home ownership programme that we are asking local authorities to consider in the light of the Housing Bill is quite simple. The first is the selling of council houses to sitting tenants. The second is the selling of local authority-owned land to private builders


with planning permission for starter home schemes. The third is the building of starter homes for sale on local authority land in partnership with private builders. The fourth is the improving of homes for sale. The fifth is the selling of unimproved homes for improvement by the purchaser. The sixth is the offering of shared ownership as an alternative to outright sales wherever possible. The seventh is using the new local authority mortgage guarantee powers to facilitate down market lending by building societies.
The capital receipts arising from a number of the seven points which I have just set out and which will augment a council's HIP allocation for 1981–82 onwards would allow Sheffield city council to get the maximum housing value from the available public expenditure.
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not at all certain that Sheffield has yet realised how it will have to proceed if it is to act in the interests of its tenants and those on its waiting list. I can do no better than repeat my compliments to the hon. Gentleman on the clear way in which he put the case which Sheffield has put to him. It is a case which I think has holes in it, because he made the point about drawing a percentage reduction from Sheffield's

bid as opposed to the allocation. That is a rather difficult argument to sustain when Sheffield had a £7 million underspend on its previous year's allocation. So it would give one not very much confidence that it could achieve the actual bid it put in.
I say to the hon. Member and to the House that it really is time that Sheffield began to face up to the realities of the situation and took an objective look at its programme and policies, bearing in mind the wide variety of options which are open to the council and which I have set out very clearly following the speech by my hon. Friend a few weeks ago. It really is time that Sheffield stopped living in a political dream world of its own and began to live in the real world. That then would be, perhaps, more in keeping with the interests of its ratepayers, its tenants, those on its waiting list and the nation. That is what Sheffield could do to help itself, and I am sure that as a very faithful representative of his constituents and their interests the hon. Gentleman will convey those points to Sheffield. I hope that it will learn from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.